Skip to Main Content

This is the second blog post in the blog series: “Procuring Agile vs. Non-Agile Service”. Read the first blog. This blog post demonstrates the differences in Stage 1: Plan Project in the five stages of procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

As the Project Management Body of Knowledge® (PMBOK®) explains, organizations fall along a structure and reporting spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are functional organizations, in which people report to their functional managers. (For example, Finance staff report to a Finance director.) On the other end of this spectrum are projectized organizations, in which people report to a project manager. Toward the middle of the spectrum lie hybrid—or matrix—organizations, in which reporting lines are fairly complex; e.g., people may report to both functional managers and project managers. 

What is the difference in how government organizations procure agile vs. non-agile information technology (IT) services?

Over the course of its day-to-day operations, every organization acquires, stores, and transmits Protected Health Information (PHI), including names, email addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, and social security numbers.

Success is slippery and can be evasive, even on the simplest of projects. Grasping it grows harder during lengthier and more complex undertakings, such as enterprise-wide technology projects—and requires incorporating a variety of short- and long-term strategies. 

Most of us have been (or should have been) instructed to avoid using clichés in our writing. These overstated phrases and expressions add little value, and often only increase sentence length. We should also avoid clichés in our thinking, for what we think can often influence how we act.

Here’s a challenge for you: Can you identify the number one predictor of project success? According to Prosci, the leading change-management research organization, the answer is the project sponsor.

Government projects conducted in challenging conditions require trust, collaboration, communication, and project management acumen to succeed. Here are five recommendations for project success.

It can be challenging and stressful to plan for technology initiatives, especially those that involve and impact every area of your organization. 

Read this if you use, manage, or procure public safety and corrections technology. 

When initiating the selection of a new technology platform to replace legacy software, how does an agency ensure the new system addresses functional and technical requirements while also complying with procurement standards? Request for Proposals (RFP) serve as an effective purchasing vehicle, particularly when agencies seek to identify modern technology with professional services to implement the software. While correctional agencies may use an RFP to engage a new Offender Management System (OMS) provider, the complexities of the industry and vast range of best practices complicate the planning, scoping, issuance, and evaluation process. 

With the long-term vision set to complete projects on time, under budget, and within scope, independent third-parties write technology RFPs to enhance traceability and accountability during implementation.

An independent third-party can help your agency:

  1. Define a meaningful project scope to scale the vendor market and guide quality proposals
  2. Develop effective forms, worksheets, and attachments to supplement RFP requirements to support compliance and meet proposal standards
  3. Build a balanced evaluation committee with impartial scoring criteria to represent agency-wide needs and fairly rank vendors
  4. Craft a structured procurement package that attracts multiple vendors to find the solution that best fits your needs
  5. Design a reasonable and achievable RFP schedule of events to finish the project in a timely manner
  6. Reduce ambiguity and increase clarity of RFP terms to streamline the process

If your agency incorporates a sound strategy to craft a meaningful RFP, then a lengthy, meandering procurement journey will become a well-defined, objective, and seamless process to identify new software. Furthermore, you can enhance competitive responses with an RFP free from ambiguity―and full of clarity.

If your corrections agency does engage outside help to facilitate development of an RFP for new OMS software, you should ensure that the third party you engage has experience supporting a meaningful, balanced, and structured purchasing process. BerryDunn injects best practices from the Corrections Technology Association (CTA) and American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). Pairing CTA and APPA standards with an RFP tailored to the technology markets will help an agency boost vendor responses to ultimately improve critical operations.

Reach out to our professional team directly for questions, or look out for our next blog providing insight on leveraging industry standards (e.g., CTA, APPA) when crafting an RFP for corrections technology.
 

Blog
Sourcing new IT systems: Third-party advantages

Read this if your organization, business, or institution is receiving financial assistance as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Updated: August 5, 2020

Many for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are receiving financial assistance as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While there has been some guidance, there are still many unanswered questions. One unanswered question has been whether or not any of this financial assistance will be subject to the Single Audit Act. Good news―there’s finally some guidance:

  • For organizations receiving financial assistance through the Small Business Administration (SBA) Payroll Protection Program (PPP), the SBA made the determination that financial assistance is not subject to the Single Audit.
  • The other common type of financial assistance through the SBA is the Emergency Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. The SBA has made the determination that as these are direct loans with the federal government, they will be subject to the Single Audit. 

It is unlikely there will be guidance within the 2020 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement related to testing the EIDL program, as the Compliance Supplement anticipated in June 2020 will not have any specific information relative to COVID-19. The OMB announced they will likely be issuing an addendum to the June supplement information specific to COVID-19 by September 2020.

Small- and medium-sized for-profit organizations, and now not-for-profit organizations, are able to access funds through the Main Street Lending Program, which is comprised of the Main Street New Loan Facility, the Main Street Priority Loan Facility, the Main Street Expanded Loan Facility, the Nonprofit Organization New Loan Facility, and the Nonprofit Organization Expanded Loan Facility. We do not currently know how, or if, the Single Audit Act will apply to these loans. Term sheets and frequently asked questions can be accessed on the Federal Reserve web page for the Main Street Lending Program.

Not-for-profits have also received additional financial assistance to help during the COVID-19 pandemic, through Medicare and Medicaid, and through the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). While no definitive guidance has been received, HEERF funds, which are distributed through the Department of Education’s Education Stabilization Fund, have been assigned numbers in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, which seems to indicate they will be subject to audit. We are currently awaiting guidance if these programs will be subject to the Single Audit Act and will update this blog as that information becomes available.

Healthcare providers are able to access Provider Relief Funds (PRF) through the US Department of Health & Human Services. PRF help with healthcare-related expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19. Guidance on what qualifies as a healthcare-related expense or lost revenue is still in process, and regular updates are posted on the FAQs of the US Department of Health & Human Services website. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), PRF funds will be subject to the Single Audit Act requirements. It is important to note that while an organization may have received funds exceeding the threshold, it is the expenditure of these funds that counts toward the Single Audit threshold.

If you have questions about accounting for, or reporting on, funds that you have received as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, please contact a member of our Single Audit Team. We’re here to help.

Blog
COVID-19: Single audit and uniform guidance clarifications

Read this if your organization, business, or institution is receiving financial assistance as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Updated: August 5, 2020

We expect to receive guidance on how to determine what qualifies as lost revenue in mid-August, and will post additional information when that becomes available. If you would like the information sent to you directly, please contact Grant Ballantyne.

New information continues to surface about the reporting requirements of the CARES Act Provider Relief Funds (PRFs). The most recent news published by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) states the funds will be subject to the Single Audit Act requirements. What does this mean and how does it impact your organization? Here’s a brief synopsis. 

A Single Audit (often referred to as a Uniform Guidance audit) is required when total federal grant expenditures for an organization exceed $750,000 in a fiscal year. It is important to note that while an organization may have received funds exceeding the threshold, it is the expenditure of these funds that counts toward the Single Audit threshold.  

PRFs help with healthcare-related expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19. Guidance on what qualifies as a healthcare-related expense or lost revenue is still in process, and regular updates are posted on the FAQs of the US Department of Health & Human Services website.

You may remember, there were originally quarterly reporting requirements related to PRFs. On June 13, 2020 HHS updated their FAQ document to reflect a change in quarterly reporting requirements related to PRFs. According to the updated language, “Recipients of Provider Relief Fund payments do not need to submit a separate quarterly report to HHS or the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. HHS will develop a report containing all information necessary for recipients of Provider Relief Fund payments to comply with this provision.”

Organizations that receive more than $150,000 in PRFs must still submit reports to ensure compliance with the conditions of the relief funds, but the content of the reports and dates on which these are due is yet to be determined (as of August 4, 2020). The key distinction to remember here is that this limit is based on total funds received, regardless of whether or not expenditures have been made. 

As more information comes out, we will update our website. At the moment the main takeaways are:

  • Expending $750,000 of combined relief funds and other federal awards will trigger a Single Audit
  • Receiving $150,000 of PRFs will cause reporting requirements, on a to-be-determined basis
  • Tracking PRF expenditures throughout the fiscal year will be essential for the dual purpose of reporting expenditures and accumulating any potential Single Audit support

If you would like to speak with a BerryDunn professional about reporting under the Single Audit Act, please contact a member of our Single Audit Team.

Blog
Provider Relief Funds Single Audit

Read this if you are a business with employees working in states other than their primary work location.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many of us to leave our offices to work remotely. For many businesses, that means having employees working from home in another state. As telecommuting become much more prevalent, due to both the pandemic and technological advances, state income tax implications have come to the forefront for businesses that now have a remote workforce and employees that may be working in a state other than their primary work location. 

Bipartisan legislation known as the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act of 2020 (S.3995) was introduced in the US Senate on June 18, 2020 to address the state and local tax implications of a temporary or permanent remote workforce. The legislation addresses both income tax nexus for business owners and employer-employee payroll tax responsibilities for a remote workforce. Here are some highlights:

Business income tax responsibility

The legislation would provide a temporary income tax nexus exception for businesses with remote employees in other states due to COVID-19. The exception would relieve companies from having nexus for a covered period, provided they have no other economic connection to the state in question. The covered period begins the date employees began working remotely and ends on either December 31, 2020 or the date on which the employer allows 90% of its permanent workforce to return to their primary work location, whichever date comes first.

The temporary tax nexus exception is welcome news for many business owners and employers, as a recent survey by Bloomberg indicated that three dozen states would normally consider a remote employee as a nexus trigger. Additional nexus would certainly add further income tax compliance requirements and potentially additional tax liabilities, complications that no businesses need in this already challenging environment.

Employee and employer tax responsibility

The tax implications for telecommuting vary wildly from state to state and most have not addressed how current laws would be adjusted or enforced due to the current environment. For example, New York implements a “convenience of the employer” rule. So if an out-of-state business has an employee working from home in New York, whether or not those wages are subject to New York state income tax depends on the purpose for the telecommuting arrangement. 

New York’s policy is problematic in the current environment. Arguments could be made that the employee is working for home at their convenience, at the employer’s convenience, or due to a government mandate. It is unclear which circumstance would prevail and as of this writing, New York has not addressed how this rule would apply.

If enacted, the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would restrict a state’s authority to tax wage income earned by employees for performing duties in other states. The legislation would create a 90-day threshold for determining nonresident income tax liability for calendar year 2020, enhancing a bill in the House which proposes a 30-day threshold.

The 90-day threshold applies specifically to instances where the employee work arrangement is different due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For future years, the bill would put in place a standardized 30-day bright-line test, making it easier for employees to know when they are liable for non-resident state income taxes and for employers to know which states they need to withhold payroll taxes. 

What do you need to do?

With or without legislation, the year-end income tax filings and information gathering will be very different for tax year 2020. It’s more important than ever for business owners to have proper record keeping on where their employees are working on a day-to-day basis. This information is crucial in determining potential tax exposure and identifying a strategy to mitigate it. The Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would provide needed guidance and restore some sense of tax compliance normalcy.

If you would like more information, or have a question about your specific situation, please contact your BerryDunn tax consultant. We’re here to help.
 

Blog
The remote worker during COVID-19: Tax nexus and the new normal

Read this if you are a member or leader of a policing agency. 

Due to recent events, community members have taken to the streets nationwide to demand what they deserve from the police as a starting point: social and procedural justice. 

Social justice is an essential component of healthy, effective communities. It is based on a fair and just relationship between individuals and society. Social justice demands that those in the community feel safe—including feeling safe from the police. Feeling safe starts with procedurally-just policing. Procedural justice in policing is the principle that forms the foundation of the community’s willingness, individually and aggregately, to accept the actions of the police, obey laws, participate in the criminal justice system, and partner with law enforcement to reduce crime and disorder, and is dependent on the community’s acceptance of policing actions as fair and equitable. Procedural justice consists of four primary pillars:

  1. FAIRNESS
    Being fair in processes
  2. VOICE
    Providing the opportunity for voice 
  3. TRANSPARENCY
    Being transparent in actions
  4. IMPARTIALITY
    Being impartial in decision-making

Achieving social and procedural justice within policing requires meaningful change and reform that must extend beyond prior efforts. 

Across the United States, communities are calling for revised policies, targeted training, increased accountability, and better screening of police candidates. All of these efforts are important and should be explored. However, these same efforts have been pursued since community-oriented policing (COP) became popular in the 80s and 90s, and even as COP gained additional interest and momentum following a series of high-profile excessive-force incidents that trace back nearly a decade. Despite substantial focus on these areas within the law enforcement industry, concerns over systemic racism, biased policing, and a lack of trust between the police and the community continue to persist.

Community Co-production Policing: The crucial next step

The current policing environment calls for broad and deep reforms in the operations and collaborative culture of police agencies. This level of reform requires a coordinated effort to reframe the police department as a community-owned resource, and can be accomplished through engaging a Community Co-production Policing (CCPP) model. Implementation of the CCPP model, developed by BerryDunn in collaboration with practitioners and community members across the country, merges and unifies police agencies and communities through multiple collaborative pathways, resulting in shared responsibilities in areas such as guidance, oversight, and the development of policies, operational strategies, public safety priorities, and other shared goals.  

Co-production expands the focus of traditional COP and includes a greater level of community participation and involvement in key policing strategies that affect the community. The key distinction is that while COP is informative, interactive, allows for community input, and is often collaborative with regard to problem solving, co-production involves a greater level of influence and involvement by the community regarding the overarching policing strategies and priorities that ultimately affect those being served by the police agency.  

Building trust and confidence with the community

From a co-production policing perspective, influence and involvement from the community form the foundation for trust and confidence in the police agency and agreement in the processes, procedures, and practices used in pursuit of public safety for those who live in or visit the community. This level of involvement serves as a persistent external accountability process, which helps ensure consistent alignment between community desires and expectations and the actions the police use to meet them. 

Co-production is a collaborative process, not an oversight process. It involves working together to cooperatively co-produce public safety, in a respectful and thoughtful manner that places value on mutuality.

Below, the goals and predicted outcomes of the CCPP model are outlined. Accomplishing the CCPP goals is expected to produce the predicted outcomes, and these new positive outcomes address the longstanding negative outcomes that remain unresolved within the policing industry.

CCPP Goals and Predicted Outcomes
CCCP GOALS PREDICTED OUTCOMES
Reducing fractionalism: The inharmonious separation which has occurred between the community and those responsible for policing it. Increased community trust: Because the community shares decision-making authority in substantive policing matters, they will have shared ownership over the results.
Creating transparency: There can be no more secrecy in accountability or policymaking, or in determining strategies to address and reduce crime and disorder. Enhanced public safety: Trust is the cornerstone to solving crimes, and when trust is established, people will more readily assist in public safety matters affecting them.
Balancing power: Those who police the community must have the authority to do so, however, police department governance should be a shared responsibility. Improved racial/diversity equity: Diverse partnerships lead to greater understanding, which in turn, changes perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors.


The public outcry for police reform provides cities, towns, and counties with a rare opportunity to affect how their communities are policed in the future. This opportunity involves transforming policing towards a collaborative model where the police departments of the future are increasingly community-based and community-operated. BerryDunn’s CCPP model can help communities achieve this level of reform and transformation. 

For more information

Mitch Weinzetl and BerryDunn’s Justice and Public Safety (J&PS) team are leading this unique service. Our independence and objectivity enables a facilitation-based approach to engaging stakeholders across the community with the goal of collaborating on a future policing model that addresses the need for public safety in a way that is informed and inspired by the community that the police departments serve. 

To learn more about how the CCPP model can help reconnect your police department and your community, contact Mitch Weinzetl.
 

Blog
Policing in America: Time for a change