Request for Proposal (RFP) to Provide Financial Statement Audit And Performance / Compliance Agreed-Upon Procedures Services

Solicitation No.

214237

Type / RFx

RFP

Status

Active

Level

local

Published Date

—

Due Date

August 13, 2026

NAICS Code

541211AI guide

Jurisdiction

Sacramento Transportation Authority

State

California

Agency

Sacramento Transportation Authority

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (hereinafter referred to as “STA”) is requesting proposals from qualified certified public accounting firms (hereinafter referred to as “Firms”) to audit its annual financial statements, with respect to governmental entities receiving Measure A and Sacramento Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority (SAVSA) funding for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027, and, at STA’s option, for the two subsequent fiscal years, to be reported individually. The STA is also requesting proposals from qualified firms to perform an agreed upon procedures (“AUP”) audit (Performance / Compliance Audit), with respect to government entities receiving Measure A funding for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, and, at STA’s option, for the two subsequent fiscal years, to be reported individually. Proposals should respond to the specific scope of services for both the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Audit and the Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) Audit (Performance / Compliance Audit). --- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS --- Q: 1. Has there been any turnover in management during the past year? 2. Has there been any turnover in accounting staff during the past year? 3. What accounting software do you use? Any plans for change? 4. How many journal entries were proposed by the auditor in the prior year? 5. Are any management letter comments outstanding from the prior year? 6. May we receive a copy of last year's management letter? 7. How many major programs are subject to a Single Audit? 8. Any known or suspected fraud? 9. When will the books be ready for the audit? 10. Are financial records available electronically? 11. Is remote auditing acceptable? 12. Who prepares the financials? 13. Were there any significant transactions (e.g., bond issuance, leases) during the year? 14. Significant changes to operations or funding sources? 15. Significant construction or capital projects? 16. Any audits or inspections by regulatory agencies? 17. Any changes to the governance structure of STA? 18. Is the incumbent auditor invited to bid? 19. What were the audit fees for the prior year? A: 1. Has there been any turnover in management during the past year? a. No 2. Has there been any turnover in accounting staff during the past year? a. No 3. What accounting software do you use? Any plans for change? a. QB Enterprise Desktop - we are in the implementation process for Aclarian software. Planned go live is January 2027. 4. How many journal entries were proposed by the auditor in the prior year? a. Minor entries. 5. Are any management letter comments outstanding from the prior year? a. None for the ACFR audits. b. There are a couple of management letter comments for the Performance /. Compliance Audit. Please review the added AUP management letter. 6. May we receive a copy of last year's management letter? a. Both are attached. 7. How many major programs are subject to a Single Audit? a. Currently none, we have a $1M Federal transportation Grant that hasn't been started. It likely will not trigger a single audit, as it will be spread out over more than 1 year. 8. Any known or suspected fraud? a. None 9. When will the books be ready for the audit? a. They will be ready in accordance with the RFP timeline. We typically don't receive everything for approx. 75 days. 10. Are financial records available electronically? a. Yes 11. Is remote auditing acceptable? a. Yes 12. Who prepares the financials? a. This should be part of the audit engagement as an optional add in. After the full implementation of the new ERP I will bring preparation of the ACFR in house. 13. Were there any significant transactions (e.g., bond issuance, leases) during the year? a. New ERP Capitalization. 14. Significant changes to operations or funding sources? a. No 15. . Significant construction or capital projects? a. None that are outside of typical operations 16. Any audits or inspections by regulatory agencies? a. None in 2025-26 or expected in 2026-27 17. Any changes to the governance structure of STA? a. No 18. Is the incumbent auditor invited to bid? a. We have a mandatory 3-year auditor rotation per the ordinance. They cannot bid. 19. What were the audit fees for the prior year? a. ACFR $50,410 (FY 2025-26) b. AUP $23,600  note this was a two-year engagement (FY 2023-25). We do not sample all of our agencies every year either. We sample all of them over the course of two years. Q: 1. AUP Agency Selection - How many agencies and projects do STA and the ITOC currently anticipate will be included in the FY 2025-26 Performance/Compliance AUP engagement? Have the agencies/projects already been identified? Attachment A references minimum testing selections but does not specify the expected final population. 2. Expected Site Visits - Should proposers assume on-site visits at all agencies selected for AUP testing, or will certain procedures be permitted remotely? 3. Prior Findings by Agency - Can STA provide a summary of recurring compliance, eligibility, maintenance-of-effort, procurement, or reporting issues identified during recent audits of Measure A recipient agencies? 4. ITOC Expectations - Beyond the procedures listed in Attachment A, are there specific priorities, areas of emphasis, or reporting enhancements currently being requested by the ITOC for the upcoming engagement cycle? 5. Status of SCTMFP Compliance - For the AUP objectives related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP), have any agencies experienced compliance issues, reporting challenges, or implementation concerns during the most recent audit periods? , 6. Anticipated Accounting or Program Changes - Are there any significant accounting, debt, grant, Measure A program, SCTMFP, or organizational changes anticipated during the contract term that proposers should consider when developing staffing and fee estimates? The RFP notes bond refinancing activity and the potential reactivation of SAVSA fee collections. A: 1. AUP Agency Selection - How many agencies and projects do STA and the ITOC currently anticipate will be included in the FY 2025-26 Performance/Compliance AUP engagement? Have the agencies/projects already been identified? Attachment A references minimum testing selections but does not specify the expected final population. a. See attached auditing rotation schedule. b. 20% of the total dollar amount of transactions should be tested with a variety of expenditure types. (this results in approximately 2-5 transactions per agency) 2. Expected Site Visits - Should proposers assume on-site visits at all agencies selected for AUP testing, or will certain procedures be permitted remotely? a. All procedures can be performed remotely. STA will coordinate PBC requests with the audit team. 3. Prior Findings by Agency - Can STA provide a summary of recurring compliance, eligibility, maintenance-of-effort, procurement, or reporting issues identified during recent audits of Measure A recipient agencies? a. See management letter provided as an addendum. 4. ITOC Expectations - Beyond the procedures listed in Attachment A, are there specific priorities, areas of emphasis, or reporting enhancements currently being requested by the ITOC for the upcoming engagement cycle? a. The Maintenance of Effort testing will have updated criteria that will be tested with all jurisdictions with Streets and Roads. 5. Status of SCTMFP Compliance - For the AUP objectives related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP), have any agencies experienced compliance issues, reporting challenges, or implementation concerns during the most recent audit periods? , a. None noted in the prior audit. 6. Anticipated Accounting or Program Changes - Are there any significant accounting, debt, grant, Measure A program, SCTMFP, or organizational changes anticipated during the contract term that proposers should consider when developing staffing and fee estimates? The RFP notes bond refinancing activity and the potential reactivation of SAVSA fee collections. a. None anticipated. No 2026-27 refinancing activity. The SAVSA program had polling go out that didn't favor seeking a new voter measure, we will not be seeking renewal in 2026. Q: Please confirm the timing of the entrance conference with the ITOC and due date for the agreed upon procedures report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. Should the cost proposal (Section 5.4) be submitted as a single all-inclusive not-to-exceed fee per service per fiscal year, or does STA also want a breakdown by staff level/hourly rate and estimated hours? What is the STA's budget for audit fees for 2026/27? A: 1. Please confirm the timing of the entrance conference with the ITOC and due date for the agreed upon procedures report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. a. The Agreed Upon Procedures are more flexible than the ACFR. Ideally, they should be finished before November 2nd. This work also could be fit into March / April finalizing in Summer. The ACFR has a hard deadline in November due to our Board schedule and GFOA requirements. 2. Should the cost proposal (Section 5.4) be submitted as a single all-inclusive not-to-exceed fee per service per fiscal year, or does STA also want a breakdown by staff level/hourly rate and estimated hours? a. Please provide a high-level summary of each engagement (ACFR / AUP) and a staff level breakdown. Also, please break out the ACFR preparation fee, as we are planning on bringing that in house, so that may be removed in future years. 3. What is the STA's budget for audit fees for 2026/27? a. These engagements span more than one fiscal year, but these are the approximate budgets. b. ACFR $55,000 c. AUP $15,000

1. August 13, 2026Responses Due