Failure to assess the disbursement procedures in-place and to install measures in assessing the implementation of projects funded from the Special Education Fund (SEF) of P1,161,409.00 may result to inefficient implementation of the program/project of the local school board.

Section 91 of COA Circular No. 2002-113 prescribed the disbursement procedures on local school board fund or Special Education Fund (SEF) as follows:

“Disbursement procedures including the reports to be submitted by the accountable officer concerned are the same as those for the General Fund. However, disbursements shall be approved by the Local Chief Executive concerned as co-chairman of the local school board. The division/city superintendent of schools or the district supervisor concerned, as the case maybe, shall certify vouchers or payrolls as to validity, propriety, and legality of the claim involved.”

However, with the issuance of COA Circular No. 2006-02, the Head of the requesting Unit or his duly authorized representative shall prepare the Obligation Request (ObR) and the Disbursement Voucher (DV) and certify the necessity and legality of charges to appropriations and allotment under his direct supervision. He shall also certify to the validity, propriety and legality of supporting documents.

These procedures should regularly be assessed to determine whether these are carried on or observed

While it could be noted that the provision of Section 100 of RA 7160 was observed in utilizing the Special Education Fund which is among others, repair and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of public elementary and secondary schools, totaling P 1,161,409.00 (Annex 4 ) it is, however, disclosed that the School Superintendent does not maintain records/listings of schools to be repaired for funding.

Most of the funding requests for the repairs and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities, from different school principals including those from school principals under the city divisions were acted upon without passing through and/or having the obligation request certified by the School Superintendent or his duly authorized representative as required.

Likewise, accomplishments on the implementation of projects funded under SEF were not monitored. No accomplishment report was required from the concerned recipient as basis for validation.

The Local School Board failed to assess the procedures on the disbursement of the SEF and to institute/install control measures in assessing whether the programs/projects are carried on efficiently.

There is a risk that projects on the repairs and maintenance of school buildings and facilities will be doubly funded, from the Department of Education national fund and local school board funds of the municipality, city and province.

There is also the probability that schools which maybe of less priority to be repaired may be funded instead, or ahead of those schools which really need to be repaired, such that less priority programs will be carried on/implemented.

The Local School Board represented by the School Superintendent as Co- Chairman agreed with our observations and committed to act on the recommendations in carrying out the local school board fund or SEF effective Calendar Year 2007.

Recommendation:

Require the District Supervisors province wide to submit to the School Superintendent a listing of the school’s priority to be repaired and other priority needs. The School Superintendent then evaluates and consolidates. Henceforth, prepare priority listing of schools to be repaired based on the listings submitted and also prepare details of the programs/projects/activities to be funded out of the Special Education Fund for control purposes.

Require the School Board Secretary to process the disbursements of SEF duly certified by the School Superintendent.

Also, require the submission of accomplishment report on the projects implemented for validation by the monitoring committee.

3. Failure to require the submission of status report on projects from the recipient local government units and non-monitoring of projects funded by the Province totaling P30,564,619.65 may lead to unreliable report of project accomplishment of the agency and may weaken the accountability and responsibility of the end users.

For strong internal control system, recipient agency should submit Report of Implementation showing the physical accomplishment and financial status of the project fund received from the provincial government. Project Accomplishment Report should be validated to provide for a reasonable assurance on the reliability of the reported status/accomplishment. The report should be simple yet comprehensive and understandable for users/readers especially the management to have a reliable basis for recommendation /and or decision- making.

Interview with the Provincial Planning Development Office (PPDO) personnel disclosed that monitoring of projects totaling P 30,564,619.65 was seldom undertaken. (Annex 3) That, the accomplishment report prepared was based on submitted report by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, if there is, but more often the PPDO personnel will do the gathering of information/data from the Municipality, there being no accomplishment report submitted. Likewise, recipient Barangays were not submitting status report of the provincial project funds.

The report prepared by the PPDO was based on the format prescribed by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) which accordingly the Local Chief Executive (LCE) or the top management may not be inclined to read because of its being not only tedious but also it does not provide the needed information for decision making at a glance.

This has transpired because prior to the release of fund, the provincial government did not stipulate in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the recipient LGU the rendition or submission of Accomplishment Report showing the financial and physical status of project fund.

The monitoring personnel at the PPDO explained that regular monitoring was not made possible due to the unavailability of vehicle.

Vehicle is not a hindrance in performing the expected task on project monitoring considering that the Provincial Government owned a number of good running-condition or serviceable vehicles. It may only need coordination with other offices or bringing the matter to the top management or LCE’s attention.

In effect, accomplishment Report may not be representing the actual financial and physical status of accomplishment as of a given period.

Furthermore, the prevailing practice may weaken the accountability and responsibility of the recipient LGU or end users.

The management had likewise concurred with our observations and assured the implementation of our recommendations.

Recommendation:

Require the recipient agency to submit Accomplishment Report showing the physical and fund status of implementation, in a form of MOA entered into by and between the Provincial Government and the recipient LGU. The MOA shall stipulate the responsibility of the latter to render financial and physical status report of the project implementation and be accountable for the proper use of the fund pursuant to accounting and auditing rules and regulations.

2. Transfers of properties to other government agencies summing P4,462,508.00 were not supported with the required documents as prescribed under Section 123 of COA Circular No. 2002-003 and Section 186 of COA Circular 92-386 and were not properly communicated to the agency head concerned thus, proper accounting of these government’s assets could not be undertaken, eventually exposing government properties to possible loss or misuse.

Section 123 of COA Circular No. 2002-003 states among others:

“All issuances of supplies and property shall be properly receipted using the forms prescribed under applicable rules and regulations on supply and property management in local government units.”

Whereas, Section 158 (a) of COA Circular 92-386 provides that:

“Transfer of non-expendable supplies or property from one supply officer to another supply officer shall be covered by Invoice Receipt (General Form 30-A, as amended)” .

Section 186 of COA Circular 92-386 also provides that:

Transfer without cost of supplies or property from local government unit to any other government agency shall be approved as follows:

transfer between local government – the sanggunian representing the transferor and the local chief executive representing the transferee shall approve the transfer; and

transfer between local government and national government - the sanggunian shall approve for the local government and the head of the department or office of the national government shall approve for the department or office of the national government concerned.

Further, a Journal Entry Voucher (JEV) shall be drawn to drop the property transferred from the books of accounts. Copy of the JEV and Invoice Receipt shall be transmitted to the head of the recipient agency as basis of taking up the subject property transferred in the books of accounts.

However, JEV taking up the transfer of property was not drawn. Except from the own-designed/modified pro-forma of Invoice Receipt for Property prepared by the General Services Office (GSO) where it lacks the necessary signatories, no other documents were made to attest the transfer of property from the provincial government to other Local Government Units (LGUs) and National Government Agencies (NGAs) summing P4,462,508.00 . (Annex 2 )

No office took concern as to whether the property transferred could be accounted/recorded in the books of the recipient agency.

Since there was no JEV drawn taking up in the books as asset accounts on the properties procured intended for transfer, as discussed previously in Finding No. 1, it could then be unnecessary to draw JEV dropping the property from the asset accounts upon actual transfer of property.

The GSO is claiming that the issuance of its own-designed/modified pro-forma of Invoice Receipt for Property executed during the procurement process of properties intended for transfer terminated the ownership of the provincial government over the subject property especially so that most of the properties are directly delivered to the concerned recipient.

There being no document/s which will serve as basis for booking up the property transferred from the provincial government to other government agencies, there is a high risk/possibility that the subject property may not be booked up by the recipient agency concerned. Such condition would not only understate the government’s assets and corresponding expense but would also expose the government properties to possible loss or misuse.

The management concurred with our observations and promised to implement our recommendations in the ensuing year’s operations.

Recommendation:

Require the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the heads of the LGUs and NGAs as recipients of the transferred property from the province per Section 186 of COA Circular 92-386.

Require the GSO to prepare/accomplish the prescribed form on the Invoice Receipt for Property (IRP) upon the transfer of property from the provincial government to other government agencies.

Also, require the recipient agency to draw a JEV taking up the property received in its book as asset account and to provide the provincial government a copy of the said JEV as basis of the Provincial Accountant to draw a JEV dropping the property transferred to other government agency from its books of accounts.

Section 120 of COA Circular No. 2002-003 prescribed the recording of the deliveries of Supplies or Property in the books of accounts. The Chief Accountant shall maintain Equipment Ledger Cards per stock number, Property, Plant and Equipment Ledger Cards for each category of assets; and Real Property Ledger Cards for land.

Upon receipt of the Acceptance and Inspection Report (AIR) and other supporting documents, the Chief Accountant shall record the deliveries in the appropriate ledger cards. Upon completion of the disbursement process pertaining thereto, the Chief Accountant shall prepare the Journal Entry Voucher (JEV) taking up in the books the procurement made. Thereafter, the Chief Accountant shall reconcile the JEV with the appropriate ledger cards.

Review of the accounting processes for procurement of properties disclosed the following:

Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) Ledger Cards for each category of assets and Real Property Ledger Cards for land were not maintained by the Accounting Office.

Based on the Obligation Request (OBR), JEV was made taking up in the books the property, plant and equipment procured.

Properties procured by the province charged to the local budget appropriated for donation were not recorded as asset. The entry made was just a debit to donation of P592,413.00 and a credit to cash account. (Annex 1 )

Most of the properties acquired which were charged against prior year’s obligated appropriation were likewise not recognized or accounted for as asset, same is true with those acquired out of the Priority Development and Assistance Program (PDAP) fund. The entry made was just a debit to liability accounts, “accounts payable” for those charged to the obligated prior year’s appropriations and “other liabilities” for those charged to PDAP fund totaling P4,430,601.66 and a credit to cash account. (Annex 1)

The maintenance of the PPE Ledger Card was dispensed with due to the encoding of the Acquired PPE to the computer, which is the basis for the computation/provision of depreciation.

Also, because of the contention or the assertion of the Accounting Office that those properties procured charged from appropriation for donation and from PDAF are intended for transfer to other government agencies, recording of those properties are no longer necessary.

The non-recording of the delivered properties based on the AIR, to the PPE Ledger Cards as prescribed, produces a risk of incompleteness and incorrectness of accounting records for there could be no reconciliation to be made as a way of check and balance.

Likewise, the non-taking up as an asset account of the PPE procured out of the appropriation for donation and those charged to liability accounts understates the agency’s assets and the corresponding depreciation expense.

The management agreed with our audit observations and assured to effect the implementation of our recommendation in the ensuing year.

Recommendation:

Require the Provincial Accountant to maintain Property, Plant and Equipment Ledger Cards for each category of assets; and Real Property Ledger Cards for land.

Also, require the Provincial Accountant to record or take up in the books as asset accounts the procured properties charged to donation and liability accounts to fairly present the PPE accounts in the Financial Statements. Drop the assets from the books upon transfer to other government agencies.

In succeeding transactions, release the amount budgeted as donation to the intended beneficiary government agencies. Classify the budget as capital outlay, if the intention is to buy property, plant and equipment.

Section 19(b) of COA Circular 2002-003 dated June 20, 2002 prescribing the Manual of the New Government Accounting System for use in Local Government Units provides that modified accrual method of accounting shall be used for the real property taxes.

Section 20 of the same Circular also provides the basis of recording the Real Property Tax/Special Education Tax. It provides as follows:

“Every end of the week, thereafter the Municipal Accountant shall furnish the Provincial Accountant with the summary of the JEVs showing the breakdown of the amounts Due to LGUs. The summary, which shall be supported with the copies of JEVs, shall be the basis of the Provincial Accountant to draw the JEV taking up RPT Income. The account Due from LGU shall be debited and Real Property Tax Income shall be credited.”

The agency however, used the cash basis of accounting for its share on the Real Property Tax collected by the 14 municipalities. RPT were taken up in the books as income only upon the receipt of remittance of the same from the municipality concerned.

The Provincial Accountant failed to request the Municipal Accountants to submit to the office the summary of Journal Entry Vouchers (JEVs) showing the breakdown of the amounts Due to Local Government Units which shall be the basis of the Provincial Accountant to draw the JEV taking up Due from LGU and the corresponding RPT Income.

Also, the Provincial Accountant was apprehensive that the recording of RPT Income based on the modified cash basis might affect the collection efficiency of the Provincial Treasurer.

Moreover, it was observed that most of the municipalities failed to maintain complete subsidiary records on the Due to LGU’s Account-RPT Share.

The aftermath, receivable account “Due from LGU’s “ arising from share of Real Property Tax Income collected by the Municipalities was not recognized and RPT Income was understated considering that the municipalities were not remitting fully to the Provincial Government the latter’s share on the RPT collected. (Annex 5) . This ultimately provides a misleading financial statement.

Likewise, the management confirmed the audit observation.

Recommendation:

Require the Provincial Accountant to request the Municipal Accountant of the 14 Municipalities to furnish her office with a summary of the JEVs showing the breakdown of the amounts Due to LGUs every end of the week. Based on the summary, draw a JEV taking up Due from LGUs as debit and RPT

2. Disbursement and replenishment process of Petty Cash Fund were not in accordance with the procedures prescribed under Section 48 of COA Circular No. 2002-003 thus, the agency’s asset particularly cash account is overstated. Likewise, the purpose of maintaining petty cash fund was not realized.

Section 48 of COA Circular 2002-003 dated June 20, 2002 provides that Petty cash fund shall be maintained under the imprest system. The fund shall be sufficient for the non-recurring, emergency and petty expenses of the LGU for one month. Disbursements from the fund shall be through the Petty Cash Voucher (PCV) which shall be signed by the payee to acknowledge the amount received. The official receipt shall be attached to the PCV.

A Disbursement Voucher shall be prepared for replenishment of the petty cash fund during the year duly supported by a list/summary of PCVs, the PCVs and its supporting documents. Obligation Slip (OS), formerly ALOBS shall be prepared for each replenishment and recorded in the appropriate registry based on actual expenses incurred.

Further, it provides that at the end of year, the petty cash fund shall be fully liquidated by preparing a Report of Disbursement supported by the list/summary of PCVs, the PCVs and its supporting documents.

Review of the disbursements of the petty cash fund maintained for general administration purposes showed that they were made through the Disbursement Voucher (DV) with complete documentation such as Obligation Slip (OS), Purchase Request (PR), Purchase Order (PO), etc. instead of using Petty Cash Voucher (PCV). Like regular disbursement, it passed through the regular disbursement process. It is certified by the Accountant and approved by the Local Chief Executive.

As operationalized, replenishment of petty cash fund handled by the accountable officers assigned in the hospitals, Misamis Occidental Economic Development and Research Center (MOEDRC) and other accountable officers not assigned in the provincial treasury usually exceeded one (1) month and some of the disbursements exceeded One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Also, PCF Voucher is not used for the disbursement instead, a single DV is prepared upon replenishment supported with complete documentation.

The Balance Sheet of the General Fund as of year-end registered a Petty Cash Fund balance of P 1,435,378.78 of which P471,620.75 pertains to prior years’ . (Annex 4)

In its pursuit of observing the disbursement procedures, the management failed to capture the significance of maintaining PCF and distinguish its difference from ordinary cash advance. It failed to consider the time element or the manpower loss and the supplies expense that could have been saved had the proper processing of disbursements of the PCF been observed.

Also, the management failed to foresee how the non-liquidation of PCF affected the presentation of the financial statements.

The purpose of establishing petty cash fund was therefore not realized as the disbursement of the same required a lengthy process thus, so much time is involved before payment could be made.

The non-liquidation of petty cash fund as at year-end overstated the agency’s current asset specifically cash account hence, the readers of the financial statement are misled.

The management assented and promised to strictly observe the rules and regulations on the grant and liquidation of cash advance as recommended.

Recommendation:

Require the Provincial Accountant and the Accountable Officers concerned to follow the prescribed procedure provided under Section 48 of COA Circular 2002-003 in processing the PCF disbursement and replenishment thereof.

COA Circular No. 97-002 dated February 10, 1997 provides for the rules and regulations on the grant, utilization and liquidation of cash advances as follows:

Section 4.1.2- No additional cash advances shall be allowed to any official or employee unless the previous cash advance given to him is first settled or a proper accounting thereof is made.

Section 5.1.3 of same circular provides that cash advance for travel shall be liquidated within sixty (60) days after return to the Philippines in the case of foreign travel or within thirty (30) days after return to the permanent official station in the case of local travel.

Section 5.7 – When cash advance is no longer needed or has not been used for a period of two (2) months, it must be returned to or refunded immediately to the collecting officer.

Section 5.8 – All cash advances shall be fully liquidated at the end of each year. Except for the petty cash fund, the Accountable Officer (AO) shall refund any unexpended balance to the Cashier/Collecting Officer who will issue the necessary official receipt.

Section 5.9 – At the start of the ensuing year, a new cash advance may be granted, provided that a list of expenses against the previous cash advance is submitted. However, when no liquidation of the previous cash advance is received on or before January 20, the Accountant shall cause the withholding of the AO’s salary.

That failure of the Accountable Officer to liquidate his cash advance within the prescribed period shall constitute a valid cause for the withholding of his salary and the institution of other sanctions as provided for under paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 hereof.

Further, Section 8 of the same circular provides that, it shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Agency to ensure that proper granting, utilization and liquidation of all cash advances are in accordance with these rules and regulations.

Observation disclosed that cash advances were granted to Disbursing Officers as well as to officers and employees despite previous unliquidated cash advances. These were accounted as Cash Disbursing Officer and Due from Officers and Employees, respectively. (Annex 1)

Also, it was noted that cash advance in the amount of P865,000.00 was granted to the Disbursing/Accountable Officer of other National Government Agency, Mr. Flor C. Mantilla of the Department of Education wherein the agency has no control.

The conditions were mainly caused by the following:

Non-orientation/briefing by the Accountant and the Treasurer of the newly designated Disbursing/Accountable Officers before discharging his/her duties hence, most of the designated AOs are unaware of the procedure on handling, liquidating and other matters related to the work of an AO. To that effect, lots of liquidation reports submitted to the accounting office were not accounted nor recorded in the books, instead were returned to the concerned AOs due to lack of some documentation, lack of signature, etc.

- Non -installation of a monitoring system on the liquidation of the said cash advances by the accounting office and the pressures confronting the pre-audit section obscured the implementation of the prescribed rules and regulations on the grant and liquidation of cash advances.

In an effort of helping management and in compliance with the regulation, the auditor sent demand letters for liquidation/return of cash advance which the management supported favorably by sending written reminders to the concerned officials and employees of which P4,161,666.39 or 50.70% of the total amount granted for travel were liquidated during the year. Compared to last year, cash advances granted to Disbursing Officers decreased by P293,987.75 or about 3.2 %. However, unliquidated cash advances for travel still accumulated to P4,046,919.48 (Annex 2) while cash advances granted to Disbursing Officers reached to P8,884,644.74 (Annex 3) as of December 31, 2005.

Most of this amount had already been expended during the year or of the prior years’ operations thus, an entry made debiting the expense account was made. However, instead of crediting the cash and receivable accounts, liability accounts were credited hence, cash, receivable and liability accounts were overstated.

Further, the chances of liquidation of cash advances especially those granted in the prior years and to those officials and employees who are no longer connected with the agency would be very remote.

The management took the audit observation with appreciation and assured to take appropriate action to enforce liquidation of the outstanding cash advances.

Recommendation:

Observe fully the aforecited provisions on the granting and liquidation of cash advance in the ensuing operations to minimize if not eliminate unliquidated cash advance.

Cash advances for travel which remain unliquidated at the end of the year shall be closed to Traveling Expenses account pursuant to the modified accrual method of accounting and Section 4(a) of the NGAS Volume 1 as prescribed under COA Circular No. 2002-003 dated June 20, 2002. It shall be re-established at the beginning of the year with a credit to Prior Years’ Adjustments.

The year-end post closing trial balances of the General Fund and Special Education Fund showed that cash advances for travel worth P4,421,316.44 were not closed at the end of the year as called for under the modified accrual method of accounting (Annex 3). Instead Traveling Expenses account was debited and Accounts Payable was credited.

In effect the books showed both receivable and payable accounts to the same employee which should be eliminated being reciprocal accounts.

Management confirmed the audit observation.

Management is reminded that accrual of traveling expenses incurred during the year is made not through a debit to Traveling Expense and a credit to Accounts Payable, but rather through a debit to Traveling Expense and a credit to Due from Officers and Employees. In the ensuing year, Due from Officers and Employees account shall be reestablished by debiting Due from Officers and Employees and crediting the Prior Years’ Adjustments account. In the event that liquidation is made, the Prior Years’ Adjustments account shall be debited and the corresponding Due from Officers and Employees account shall be credited.

The Accounts Payable account shall be used only in recording valid obligations to creditors.

Recommendation:

Require the Provincial Accountant to observe the provisions of the NGAS in accruing expenses so that proper presentation of the financial statements can be effected.

2. Seventy eight percent (78%) of the total expenses in the Special Education Fund were disbursed as donations instead of the Province taking cha

The proceeds of the additional 1% Special Education Tax shall accrue to the Special Education Fund. Disbursements thereof shall be subject to the annual budgets approved by the provincial, city or municipal local school boards, as the case may be, whose disbursement shall be based upon the criteria set by the Department of Education. The concerned local school board shall authorize the provincial, city or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, to disburse funds from the Special Education Fund pursuant to the budget prepared and in accordance with existing rules and regulations. This does not mean, however, that disbursements thereof shall be in the form of donations and/or financial assistance to the Department of Education or any organizations, but shall be made as a direct disbursement from the books where the fund is held.

As of year-end, donation expenses in the Special Education Fund reached P1,334,273.00 or 78% of its total expenses. These were not disbursed as direct expenditures in the provincial books, rather, these were made in the form of donations and financial assistance to the Department of Education and other organizations (Annex 2).

Thus, determination of the legality, regularity and necessity thereof could not be made.

Management explained that the cited expenses were released directly to the Department of Education for reasons of practicality, expediency and exigency. They claimed that while it is true that the School Board budget is approved by their office, it is ultimately the Department of Education who executes and implements the programs and activities embodied therein. It often becomes unavoidable to release the financial allocation of certain programs directly to the department in the form of financial assistance. In so doing, the department is placed in a better position to carry its programs more efficiently and without delay.

Management however, took the audit observation with appreciation, such that they promised to endeavor to decide with prudence the manner by which releases from the Special Education Fund be made.

It may be worthwhile reminding management that where funds disbursed came from the coffers of the provincial government, it is just and rightful that disbursements thereof shall be made direct from the provincial accounts and not through donations and financial assistance because the Special Education Tax is entrusted and held in the Special Education Fund of the provincial government.

Recommendation:

Disburse the Special Education Fund expenditures directly from the provincial books pursuant to the criteria set by the Department of Education, as approved by the provincial local school board and not through donations and/or financial assistance.

1. Plant, Property and Equipment account was erroneously reduced by P1,171,054.71 due to erroneous conversion of accounts, thus the asset and government equity accounts are understated by same amount.

Pursuant to the constitutional mandate of the COA to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, COA issued Circular No. 2001-005 dated October 20, 2001 which provided for the accounting rules on the conversion of accounts from the old accounting system to the New Government Accounting System (NGAS) for adoption by all local government units except barangays.

In an attempt to convert the old accounts to the new accounts prescribed in the New Government Accounting Manual, the following accounts were erroneously dropped from the books:

Accounts AffectedAmountRemarks

1. School BuildingsP853,147.50Credited and offset with the old Invested Surplus Account2. Furniture and Fixtures270,908.52Credited and offset with the old Invested Surplus Account3.Other Property, Plant and Equipment

46,998.69Credited and offset with the old Invested Surplus AccountTotalP =SUM(ABOVE) 1,171,054.71

Analysis of Journal Entry Voucher # 221-2002-01.1 (Annex 1) dated January 2, 2002 showed that there was error in the conversion entries. Invested Capital was closed to Government Equity Account. Property accounts were closed by a debit to Government Equity.

The effects of the erroneous entries of conversion are as follows:

Understatement of the asset account because supposedly these assets accounts should remain as is, but with the erroneous conversion the subject properties were dropped from the books of accounts.

Understatement of the Government Equity account. By crediting the assets account instead of the new Government Equity account, there was a corresponding decrease of the latter by same amount.

Management confirmed the above deficiency and promised to effect the necessary adjustment in the current year.

Recommendation:

Instruct the Provincial Accountant to restore the property accounts in the books by debiting School Buildings for P853,147.50; Furniture and Fixtures for P270,908.52; Other Property, Plant and Equipment for P46,998.69 and crediting Government Equity for P1,171,054.71.