Cash Advances Flashcards
“If release of fund happen in 3 installments, will it mean that we shall have 3 FACE-processes a year? Does it mean to change the cycle from the first month of each quarter as reporting month to May, Sep and Jan?
“
The question relates to the potential flexibility to extend the advance period from calendar quarter to 4-months period. The answer is no, IP would still be required to submit quarterly FACE forms. If this option becomes available more instructions will be shared in due course.
“Detail budget breakdown for IP Work Plan, is it possible to use the ICE form as annex to IP Work plan
“
The sequence of these forms is different. Detailed budget breakdown should be prepared to support workplan amount at the time when the workplan is prepared. It is only after workplan is approved, FACE form can be submitted. However, para 19 of the policy for management of cash transfers to IPs allows using the workplan budgets in lieu of itemized cost estimates provided that budgets provide, at a minimum, the information required in the para 27 of the policy.
Is this threshold by year or by quarter?
This question relates to cash advances and when there is a need to obtain clearance from regional or HQ offices. Approval requirements specified in the policy for management of cash transfers to IPs are summarized in the annex II. Thresholds are annual and workplan amounts can be used as a proxy to evaluate if additional approvals are required.
“Does it only require signature of head of unit on FACE when an IP requests for advance for more than 3 months? or any additional supporting documents required?
“
The matter on frequency of cash advances is clarified in the policy for management of cash transfers to IPs (para 16-20). Head of unit does not need to sign each FACE form with the cash advance frequency longer than a quarter (unless it is one off case). If the office anticipates cash advances for a longer periods, such approval by head of unit, regional office or FB should be documented via a dedicated folder in AODOCS - Google form.
“Can we still provide cash advance to high risk IPs?
“
The selection of the cash transfer modalities is done by the respective departments based on type of activities, IP’s profile including capacity, audit, spot checks, experience of working with IP. This is to remind about additional approval requirements that are summarized in the annex II of the policy for management of cash transfers to IPs
Kindly explain the relationship between cash exceptions approval and frequency of cash transfer. Is it related with any threshold of amount or frequency of cash transfer?
Approval requirements for exceptions as well as frequency of cash advances are summarized in the annex II of the policy for management of cash transfers to IPs
If there is a management’s decision not to advance funds to an IP in a specific quarter due to implementation challenges, what documentation is required to present/upload to FACE for that quarter?
“There could be various scenarios, for example:
*) no advance request submitted, i.e. UNFPA and IP mutually agreed that no cash advance would be processed; no further actions are required;
*) FACE form is submitted requesting cash advance. There are few options: the office can return FACE form or indicate in the FACE form zero cash advance authorized. IP should be informed on such decision.
In both scenarios, it is good to have some evidence and rationale of the decision in the form of minutes of the meeting, note to the file etc. “
This time lag, is it calculated from the stage of IP submitted E-FACE to issuance of vouchers?
“Time lag efficiency has three dimensions:
- ) total time lag is calculated from the cash advance period start date (as reflected in the FACE form) to payment date (as reflected in the voucher);
- ) IP time lag is calculated from the cash advance period start date (as reflected in the FACE form) to 1st submission of the FACE form to UNFPA; and
- ) UNFPA time lag is calculated from the 1st submission of the FACE form to payment date (as reflected in the voucher)”
There needs to be clarity on the exact supporting documents that are required for processing cash advances. The lack of clarity on the exact documents has led to a lot of back and forth as well as resulting in delays
eFACE submitted in GPS, hard copy FACE form signed by authorized IP official, ICE. However, often advances and expense reporting go hand in hand. So supporting documents for expense reports should be considered: depending on risk and value.
I would like to ask question regarding the cash advance: we experienced the delay of signing work plan most of IPs could be started only from late February or early March.Therefore, in case we sign multiple years workplan. is it possible for IP to request 2 quarters cash advance? Example: cash advance for first quarter of 2021 together with the last quarter of 2020?
No, cash advance released in the current year (e.g. 4Q2020) cannot be combined with the advance for the subsequent year (e.g. 1Q2021).
Who signs the FACE form below 250K?
It depends on the country office structure, context and delegated authority by the head of unit. The policy requires that FACE forms over $250K to be signed by head of unit.
How could UNFPA consider or flexible for some IPs that has challenges to submit financial report before the deadline?
Some flexibility can be exercised during the year except for 4Q reporting that must require strict adherence to the deadlines specified in the accounts closure instructions.
Are COs not allowed implementation of additional layers of internal controls above the Policy provided approval thresholds, depending on the CO enterprise risks management strategies?
The policies and procedures set out what is mandatory to be done for a set business process. If offices implement additional controls, that is at the discretion of the head of the unit.
In addition to the list of transactions, what are the other mandatory expense justifications that an IP must upload into GPS? Can this list be shared with us? Thanks
The list of documents will depend on the risk profile of the IP, the amount of expenses reported and variances vis-a-vis workplan progress report and itemized cost estimate. However, we would like to note that the policies and procedures set out what is mandatory to be done for a set business process. If offices implement additional controls, that is at the discretion of the head of the unit.
Additional internal controls by COs (in some instances not based on risk rating of IPs but on an individual discretion/understanding) sometimes create bottlenecks and delays. It will be great if HQ GPS community can come up with standardized requirements based on scenarios
The policies and procedures set out what is mandatory to be done for a set business process. If offices implement additional controls, that is at the discretion of the head of the unit. If in doubt of what the policy requires, feel free to submit an ISD case.
