Filter FAQs

Displaying 90 Questions

Yes, the EAC adopted 2 CFR. by policy as permitted by the Office of Management and Budget. Grantees acknowledge the regulations by reviewing and accepting the terms of the award as specified in the Notice of Grant Award.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The EAC awards two distinct types of grants: 1) HAVA operational grants to states and territories and 2) discretionary grants. Operational grants include Section 101 grants for the improvement of federal election administration and Title II Section 251 requirements payments grants. The EAC does not currently have funds available for discretionary grants. For more information about current open and active grants, please visit our “Grants Management and Oversight” page.

Was this FAQ helpful?

While HAVA does not define an election for federal office, the statements of law regarding other election processes are instructive as to the meaning of the term for purposes of HAVA. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 (1) & (3)) includes “primary election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party” in its definition of the term “election.” However, some states have a definition of federal election that excludes a presidential preference primary.

Was this FAQ helpful?

HAVA does not contain a definition of the term "election for federal office." The EAC has adopted the view of the U.S. Department of Justice which is charged with enforcing the requirements of HAVA Title III. The Justice Department determined that requirements were intended to apply in any general, special, primary, or runoff election for the office of the President or Vice President, including presidential preference primaries, and any general, special, or runoff election for the office of Senator, Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories.

Was this FAQ helpful?

State allocations for mandatory grants under HAVA are calculated based on a formula established in the law that includes three steps:

  1. A minimum percentage is allocated to all states and the District of Columbia (½ of 1% of the appropriation) and the five territories (1/10 of 1%).
  2. The remainder is allocated based on the voting age population of each state in relation to the total voting age population of all states as reported in the most recent decennial census.
  3. If all states and territories do not receive the guaranteed minimum payment in HAVA ($1,000,000 for territories and $5,000,000 for the 50 states and the District of Columbia), funds are re-allocated from states above that minimum to states below the minimum to ensure all states and territories receive at least the guaranteed minimum.

The guaranteed minimum payment established in the law can be changed in appropriations language.

Was this FAQ helpful?

We follow the process set up in the Help America Vote Act in Section 101(d)(2) which is summarized below:   

Step 1. A minimum amount is distributed at first to all the states and territories, 1/2 of one percent to the states and 1/10 of one percent to the territories.​ 

Step 2. The remainder of the amount appropriated is allocated based on the percentage of voting age population in the state. Per HAVA, the population numbers are from the current published decennial census.

Step 3. There is also a minimum amount per state set in HAVA or the current appropriation act.   If there are states and territories that fall below that minimum after the allocation is made based on voting age population, the law calls for a prorated reduction from larger states to bring the smaller ones up to the minimum. 

Note: As of March 1, 2022, the most current decennial census data for the states is the 2020 Census and the most current data for the territories is the 2010 Census.  If grant funding must be distributed before the territory data is published for the 2020 Census, the EAC would make formula awards using hybrid data combining the 2020 and 2010 census.   

Was this FAQ helpful?

The grant project period begins when EAC awards appropriated funds to the states and ends when the state expends all federal and required state match funds, interest earned on the federal and state funds and any program income earned under the grant. The Notice of Grant Award issued by the EAC will identify the project period for each grant.

 

 

 

Was this FAQ helpful?

States are required to match the federal funds awarded according to the level of match specified in HAVA or set in the annual appropriations law. HAVA sets a 5% state match to Section 251 funds that must be deposited in an Election Fund described in Section 251 (b). HAVA does not set a required state match for Section 101 funds, but appropriations language may specify a matching requirement, e.g., Election Security grants.

If appropriations language sets a match requirement for Section 101 funds, the language may also specify a deadline for state to identify how they will meet the match or appropriate state funds for the match. The states then have the remaining period of the grant to meet the matching requirements. Under this scenario for Section 101 funds, states may either deposit matching funds in their state election accounts or track eligible funds/activities from their state and local general operating budgets to meet the match obligations. State and local funds used for match must be different from funds used to meet Maintenance of Effort or state match associated with HAVA Requirement Payments. American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are exempt from the match requirement.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. A quorum is not needed to distribute funds to states.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The EAC has concluded that (for the purposes of requirements payments) any pre-award cost “incurred pursuant to negotiation and in anticipation of grant award”, as required by 17 OMB Circular A-87, Pre Award Costs, is reimbursable if the cost was included in a (later) approved HAVA State plan and it was incurred after Congress appropriated HAVA requirements payment funding on February 20, 2003. In order to be properly attributed as a pre-award grant cost, a cost must have been necessary to incur in order to meet the scheduled requirements of the grant. HAVA Title III requirements include a mandate for the creation of a Statewide Voter Registration Database (42 U.S.C. §15483(a)) on or before January 1, 2004 (42 U.S.C. §15483(d)) or apply for a waiver (for good cause shown) to extend the deadline to January 1, 2006. The EAC has concluded that it is reasonable for a State to conclude that pre-award expenditures on Statewide Voter Registration Databases were necessary in order to meet HAVA timelines. Pre-award costs expended to procure a voter registration database that will meet HAVA requirements fits the use limitation. The cost must not have been allocated to meet the States maintenance of effort requirement or 5 percent matching fund requirement. In order to properly allocate a pre-award cost to a grant, the recipient must get written approval from the awarding agency, the EAC. 

Was this FAQ helpful?

According to HAVA Section 253(b)(5), the state match is 5 percent of the total amount to be spent (considering the federal amount). Therefore, the federal payment would represent 95 percent of the total federal and state funds. The calculation of the state contribution is: 

  1. Divide the federal award amount by .95 to determine the total program amount
  2. Multiply the total program amount by .05 to determine the amount of the state match. 

Example: A state's requirement payment is $11,000,000

  • $11,000,000 divided by .95 = $11,578,947 
  • The state's share is $11,578,947 x 0.5 = $578,947 
Was this FAQ helpful?

Capital improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value require prior written approval from the EAC per 2 CFR 200.439. Without pre-approval, capital improvement costs are not allowable.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes, costs associated with the purchase, installation, and maintenance of security equipment are considered allowable under HAVA to the extent it improves the administration of federal elections. These costs can include video surveillance equipment and other physical security devices, labor for installation of security systems, and the costs of maintaining those systems. These costs cannot be allocated to the federal award if they are not related to the administration of federal elections, such as physical security for non-election equipment and facilities. For example, if a jurisdiction adds security cameras to a building, only the costs of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the cameras monitoring election facilities and equipment within the building could be allocated to HAVA funds. Please be aware that Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act federal restricts grantees from using federal funds to purchase equipment, services, or systems that use certain Chinese telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services.   

 

See “What is Section 889 of FY2019 NDAA?” for additional information on the prohibition. 

Was this FAQ helpful?

Hiring permanent staff is an allowable cost. You would need to build that cost into your budget for the future after the HAVA grant ends. Also, keep in mind that the expenditure must meet the allocable criteria following 2 CFR 200.404. If the staff person will have duties beyond overseeing activities under the HAVA grant, the timesheet must allocate only the portion of time spent on election security and HAVA activities to the grant.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No, HAVA funds can only be used for costs incurred in a federal election. If there are no candidates for federal office on the ballot, HAVA funds cannot be used to cover any expenditures.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Expenses related to the installation or removal of security equipment which is used to enhance security of elections facilities are an allowable cost as the activity is reasonable to make election security improvements. This includes labor costs as appropriate.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. Consistent with standard federal guidelines, the state may authorize use in the office or official duty station on an occasional basis, provided that the use involves minimal or negligible additional expense and does not interfere with official business. Employees are expected to exercise common sense and good judgment in the personal use of equipment. The conduct of official business always takes precedence over any limited personal use. Such personal use would be so small that accounting for it would be unreasonable or impractical.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Cellular phones would generally be considered an allowable cost. Cost principles such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Purchase of vehicles requires prior approval from the EAC. While motorized vehicles are an allowable cost when they are used for voter education pursuant to Section 101(b)(1)(C) of HAVA, there are significant issues related to allocability and cost reasonableness that must still be considered in assessing the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the vehicle will not be used exclusively for the purpose of voter outreach or other activities associated with improving the administration of federal elections and is used for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Even in this instance, the appropriate percentage of cost could only be allocated to the funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b). As for the reasonableness analysis, it may be more reasonable to rent a vehicle rather than to purchase, insure, and maintain vehicles that will only be used infrequently or periodically.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Forklifts used exclusively for stacking, moving, and storing voting equipment are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the forklift will not be used exclusively for the purpose of moving stored voting equipment and are used for purposes unrelated to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to rent a forklift rather than to purchase and maintain forklifts that will only be used infrequently or periodically.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Office furniture would generally be considered an allowable cost if such cost is not covered by the maintenance of effort requirements imposed by Section 254(a)(7). The purchase of office furniture is only allowable if it can be demonstrated that the furniture would improve the administration of federal elections. As such, those costs could only be allocated to the funding programs under Sections 101 and 251(b). Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the office furniture will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Furthermore, the cost for the furniture must be reasonable as compared to what the election jurisdiction is getting.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Storage cabinets and shelving are allowable costs if they are not covered by the required maintenance of effort. See Section 254(a)(7). Cost principles such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the security cages and shelving will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.

Was this FAQ helpful?

High speed letter openers are an allowable cost for this stated purpose. Allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered in assessing the propriety of this type of expense. If the letter opener will not be used exclusively for the purpose of opening absentee ballots, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually open the letters.

Was this FAQ helpful?

This type of mail processing system is an allowable cost for the stated purpose. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must be considered to fully assess the appropriateness of such an expense. For example, if the mail processing system will not be used exclusively for the purpose of processing mail related to improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, depending on the volume of mail it may be more reasonable to manually process the mail.

Was this FAQ helpful?

States and its counties may use funds distributed under Section 101 or Section 251 to purchase voting equipment used to conduct absentee voting as long as that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA. The definition of voting systems in Section 301(b) of HAVA includes equipment used to administer absentee voting. As such, no pre-approval from the EAC is required prior to purchase. However, cost reasonableness must still be considered in selecting the equipment. The cost must be reasonably related to the value of the equipment purchased.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. States and counties may use funds distributed under Section 101 or Section 251 to purchase additional accessible voting equipment if that equipment meets the requirements of Section 301(a) of HAVA.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The answer depends on whether the purchase of VVPAT is part of the purchase of a compliant voting system (under Section 301(a)) or if it is purchased as a retrofit for a compliant voting system. If it is a component of a voting system that is being purchased, then Section 251 funds can be used to the same extent that they are available to meet the requirements of Title III. However, if the VVPAT is purchased as a retrofit, then 251 funds can be used ONLY to the extent that they can be used to improve the administration of federal elections (see 251(b)(2)), as VVPAT is not a required component of voting systems under section 301(a) and would serve only to improve the administration of elections.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The January 1, 2007, date referenced in Section 301(a)(3)(C) applies to when the funds are provided, not when the equipment is purchased. If a jurisdiction already meets the accessibility requirements under Section 301(a)(3) and they wish to purchase additional voting systems, the state would not be required to procure additional voting equipment that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, the equipment procured with those funds must meet all other HAVA Section 301 requirements.
New voting equipment purchased with additional HAVA funding received after January 1, 2007 must meet the requirements of Section 301(a)(3). If mixed funding sources are used in future voting system procurements, states will have to separately account for restricted and unrestricted money separately if the state wishes to purchase non-accessible equipment.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Generally, upgrading wiring is an allowable cost for this purpose. Upgrading wiring is justified if it improves the administration of federal elections. It can be paid for using Section 101 funds or Section 251 funds up to the minimum payment identified in Section 252. However, allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. If the internet wiring will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Generally, making polling place accessible is an allowable cost. However, this expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. As such, this cost can be allocated only to funding programs under Section 101 or Section 251(b).

Was this FAQ helpful?

Generally, making modifications to a warehouse to store voting equipment is an allowable cost. (This expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Only Section 101 funds or Section 251(b) funds may be used for this expense.) However, allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered. For example, if the warehouse modification will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to select a different warehouse rather than retrofit the current structure.

Was this FAQ helpful?

While purchasing buildings and/or equipment is an allowable cost, leasing has certain limitations. Leasing equipment is considered an allowable expense under 2 CFR 200.465, according to the limitations and conditions of paragraphs (b) through (d). Limitations include:

  • “Sale and lease back” arrangements cannot cost the state or local government more than when it owned the property. The costs include expenses such as depreciation or use allowance, maintenance, taxes, and insurance.
  • A “less-than-arms-length” agreement (i.e., a state government established a corporation to own the property then leases it back to the state) cannot cost the state or local government more than if title had vested in the state or local government.
  • Rental costs under leases which are required to be treated as capital leases under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are allowable only up to the amount that would be allowed had the state or local government purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed. Unallowable costs include amounts paid for profit, management fees, and taxes that would not have been incurred had the property been purchased.

Generally, purchasing a building for federal election activity is an allowable cost (e.g. purchasing a warehouse to store voting equipment). (This expense is not directly related to meeting any of the Title III requirements. Thus, only Section 101 or Section 251(b) funds may be used.) Factors such as allocability and cost reasonableness must still be considered in determining the appropriateness of the expense. If the warehouse will not be used exclusively for the purpose of improving the administration of federal elections, only that percentage of costs associated with the administration of federal elections can be charged to the HAVA grant. Similarly, it may be more reasonable to rent a warehouse rather than purchase one.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. Section 101 funds may be used to train election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers. Section 251 can only be used for the educational costs that benefit federal elections, as those funds are restricted to improving the administration of federal elections funds subject to the requirements of Section 251(b). The State should carefully consider the prudence of funding an ongoing expense, such as training, with a one-time funding source like HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be assumed by the state or local government upon the exhaustion of federal funds.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Generally, HAVA funds may be used to purchase food consumed during training. The provision of food is covered by OMB Circular A-87 and 2 CFR 200.432. Meals associated with meetings and conferences are allowable. However, meals that are used for entertainment purposes and alcohol are not allowable.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No. To fit within the allowable expense of voter education, the item procured must provide information on voting procedures, rights, or technology. Items intended to “get out the vote” or merely encourage voting do not meet this requirement. Items that are not fundamentally educational may be considered advertising or public relations costs prohibited by OMB Circular A-87 and 2 CFR 200.421.

Was this FAQ helpful?

According to Sections 101(b)(2) and 251(f) of HAVA, funds cannot be used to pay for costs associated with litigation except to the extent that legal expenses constitute uses/activities that are permitted under these sections for the implementation of HAVA.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. However, grantees generally seek advice from the agency that administers the grant on what constitutes an allowable cost. A state may be able to obtain the information that it needs without the necessity of a legal opinion by consulting with other state departments that are administering federal grant programs at the state level. Grantees are encouraged to request the assistance of the EAC in determining the permissibility of certain costs rather than expending HAVA funds to make this determination. OMB Circular A-87, Defense and prosecution of criminal and civil proceedings, and claims, allows for legal expenses required in the administration of a federal program.

Was this FAQ helpful?

 Yes. Maintenance of a statewide voter registration system can be paid for from Section 251 funds or Section 101 funds. However, cost reasonableness must still be considered. The state should carefully consider the prudence of funding an ongoing expense with a one-time funding source like these HAVA funds. These costs will inevitably be assumed by the state or local government upon the exhaustion of federal funds.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The EAC has concluded that (for the purposes of requirements payments) any pre-award cost “incurred pursuant to negotiation and in anticipation of grant award”, as required by 17 OMB Circular A-87, Pre Award Costs, is reimbursable if the cost was included in a (later) approved HAVA State plan and it was incurred after Congress appropriated HAVA requirements payment funding on February 20, 2003. In order to be properly attributed as a pre-award grant cost, a cost must have been necessary to incur in order to meet the scheduled requirements of the grant. HAVA Title III requirements include a mandate for the creation of a Statewide Voter Registration Database (42 U.S.C. §15483(a)) on or before January 1, 2004 (42 U.S.C. §15483(d)) or apply for a waiver (for good cause shown) to extend the deadline to January 1, 2006. The EAC has concluded that it is reasonable for a State to conclude that pre-award expenditures on Statewide Voter Registration Databases were necessary in order to meet HAVA timelines. Pre-award costs expended to procure a voter registration database that will meet HAVA requirements fits the use limitation. The cost must not have been allocated to meet the States maintenance of effort requirement or 5 percent matching fund requirement. In order to properly allocate a pre-award cost to a grant, the recipient must get written approval from the awarding agency, the EAC. 

Was this FAQ helpful?

HAVA funds may be used to replace any voting equipment designated by the grantee or its subrecipients to be at the end of its useful life. The replacement must meet the standards established by HAVA, appropriations language, and any other applicable EAC guidance. Equipment title holders should follow local and state rules for the disposition of sensitive equipment.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Travel and lodging are allowable costs under the grant. If the conference directly supports the mission/activities of the election jurisdiction sending the employee, then this would be an allowable expense.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes. Consistent with Section 251(b) to use remaining Title II, Section 251 funds for the improvement of the administration of elections for federal office, the state must submit a certification that all the Title III requirements have been met (not just the voting system requirements) or certify prior to the time that all Title III requirements are met that the state will not use more than the minimum payment amount. States are still required to spend the funds in keeping with the State Plan. If the proposed spending on improving election administration is not reflected in the state plan and represents a material change, the state plan must be amended before spending funds on an allowable activity not identified in the plan.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No, a state may not use state matching funds to satisfy the requirement that it maintain its effort. Maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements are separate from matching fund requirements. The intent of the MOE requirement is to assure that federal funding increases the amount of funding to a particular program or task and federal funds do not supplant state funds.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No, Section 251 restrictions will not be lifted on a county-by-county basis. The plain language of Section 251(b)(2) of HAVA requires that the state have implemented the requirements of Title III prior to using more than what the state could have obtained as a minimum payment for activities to improve the administration of elections for federal office. Until Title III requirements are met across the state, the restrictions apply.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 authorizes the federal funds, titled “Election Security Grants” in the Act “to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements.

The accompanying Congressional joint explanatory statement states, “Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to: replace voting equipment that only records a voter's intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter-verified paper record; implement a post-election audit system that provides a high-level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally; upgrade election-related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through [Department of Homeland Security] or similar scans or assessments of existing election systems; facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official's office and local election officials; implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for federal office.”

See “Post-Award Usage of Funds” for specific examples of allowable activities under HAVA.

Was this FAQ helpful?

States must use the funds for the activities described in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and approved by EAC in the state’s program narrative. In addition, states must follow the Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. 200 in determining the allowability of specific costs under the grant. Any equipment purchased under the grant must also meet HAVA requirements.

Was this FAQ helpful?

In-kind contributions are costs covered by a third-party for eligible activities under the grant, e.g., costs for training approved as part of the grant activities and paid for by another agency. Grantees must document these kinds of contributions They can be used to meet the match requirements for 101 grant funds (including Election Security grants) if the grant has a matching requirement.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No. You can only use state expenditures incurred during the period of the grant as match. Only the portion that falls within the grant period can be used as match.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes, this is an allowable expenditure and EAC encourages states and localities to explore this type of expenditure as an immediate way to augment cyber capabilities already in place.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The state should follow the regulations at 2 CFR 200 related to the requirements for match documentation. They apply to subgrantee as well as grantees and the grantee is responsible for ensuring subgrantees are following the regulations and maintaining appropriate expenditure documentation. That said, the regulations do not prohibit such an approach. Therefore, yes, if that is a state’s strategy to identify and document match after considering the timeliness and expense of such an approach.

Was this FAQ helpful?

A corrective action plan (CAP) is a step-by-step plan of action that is developed to achieve targeted outcomes for resolution of an identified problem or noncompliance. The EAC requires a CAP for grantees that are out of compliance with grant requirements (e.g. missed reporting deadlines).

Was this FAQ helpful?

The EAC considers requests for extensions on a case-by-case basis. Requests must be made in writing via email prior to the deadline of the required submission and should include an explanation for why the extension is needed.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes, semi-annual, and annual reporting are required. Both a Federal Financial Report (FFR) and a narrative Progress Report are due for semi-annual and annual reporting cycles.

See “Reporting” for more information about the EAC’s reporting requirements.

Was this FAQ helpful?

In addition to FAQs, the EAC publishes guidance on grant requirements such as reporting and closeout on our website: https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/financial-progress-reporting

For additional guidance and general questions about EAC grants and HAVA, please email grants@eac.gov or HAVAfunding@eac.gov.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The state must follow its own laws and procedures regarding the distribution of grant funds when issuing a sub-grant but must also assure that the sub-grantee is aware of the limitations imposed by the federal grant. A state must follow its own law as to whether a cost sharing agreement is required, or some other form of grant agreement is needed. However, there should be some documentation that supports the transfer of these funds to the local governments, whether it be a certification by the governments that they will comply with the limitations or that the governments receive funds on a cost reimbursement basis after providing a request for the funds and proof that they were spent in accordance with the state and federal restrictions. OMB Circular A-102, Common Rule, 41 C.F.R. § 105-71.137, Sub-grants, covers the requirements for states that issue sub-grants of federal funds.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Yes, It can apply to the state’s overall match. The match on a federal grant is not tracked by subgrant, only by the overall grant. Grantees are responsible for ensuring they have verifiable records of the match. 

Was this FAQ helpful?

Under 2 CFR 200, computers are considered supplies, not equipment, unless the per unit cost is over $5,000 or the state threshold, if lessor. You can dispose of them following your state procedures. However, if you sell the computers, the funds you receive are considered program income under the grant in proportion to the grant funds used to purchase the supplies and must be spent on activities allowable under the grant or repaid to EAC upon closeout. Program Income must also be reported on the FFR.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Generally, supplanting occurs when a state or local government reduces state or local funds for an activity specifically because federal funds are available or expected to be available to fund that same activity. Supplanting of state funds with HAVA funds is not permitted. Federal funds must be used to supplement existing state or local funds and may not replace state or local funding that has been appropriated or allocated for the same purpose or that is required by law.

Was this FAQ helpful?

The limit is applied on each subgrantee. The maximum amount a state can include in its modified total direct rate is $25,000 for each subgrantee. E.g, if you have one subgrantee that gets $40,000 and another that gets $20,000, the amount you can include in the calculation of modified total direct costs is $45,000 (25,000 + $20,000). 

In addition, subgrantees might also have indirect costs they could claim under the grant, either as federal share or local match. However, the state is responsible for determining if local offices have a negotiated indirect cost rate or could claim a de minimus 10%. There can also be local election offices that do not have any indirect costs; in which case, there would be no percentage to claim. The grantee must make those determinations before allowing subgrantees to claim indirect costs. 

Was this FAQ helpful?

The Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act included a prohibition on federal agencies and federal grant recipients from procuring certain Chinese telecommunications and video surveillance equipment. The Section 889 restrictions went into effect on August 13, 2020, for federal grant recipients under a new section to 2 CFR contained in 2 CFR §200.216.

The prohibited telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). Additionally, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities) that is used for the purpose of public safety, security of 16 government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes is covered equipment under Section 889.

Was this FAQ helpful?

Under Section 889 and the subsequent regulation 2 CFR §200.216, federal grant recipients and sub-recipients are restricted from using federal funds to procure, obtain, extend or renew a contract, or enter into a contract for equipment, services, or systems that use the prohibited telecommunications equipment or services as of August 13, 2020.

Was this FAQ helpful?

No, 2 CFR §200.216, which applies to grantees, does not impose a certification requirement on grantees.

Was this FAQ helpful?

While grantees are not expected to remove equipment installed prior to August 13, they should expect to and plan for a transition away from the prohibited equipment. Section 889 is clear on the prohibition against entering into new contracts, renewing existing contracts, and similar new transactions involving covered the equipment as of August 13, 2020. Grantees may use HAVA funds to transition away from the prohibited equipment.

Was this FAQ helpful?