Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

FASB and GASB news: Postponement of the lease accounting standards

04.27.20

Read this if your organization, business, or institution has leases and you’ve been eagerly awaiting and planning for the implementation of the new lease standards.

Ready? Set? Not yet. As we have prepared for and experienced delays related to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases, we thought the time had finally come for implementation. With the challenges that COVID-19 has brought to everyone, the FASB recognizes the significant impact COVID-19 has brought to commercial businesses and not-for-profits and is proposing a one-year delay in implementation, as described in this article posted to the Journal of Accountancy: FASB effective date delay proposals to include private company lease accounting.

But what about lease concessions? We all recognize many lessors are making concessions due to the pandemic. Under current guidance in Topics 840 and 842, changes to lease contracts that were not included in the original lease are generally accounted for as lease modifications and, therefore, a separate contract. This would require remeasurement of the new lease contract and related right-of-use asset. FASB recognized this issue and has published a FASB Staff Questions and Answers (Q&A) Document,  Topic 842 and Topic 840: Accounting for Lease Concessions Related to the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Under this new guidance, if lease concessions are made relating to COVID-19, entities do not need to analyze each contract to determine if a new contract has been entered into, and will have the option to apply, or not to apply, the lease modification provisions of Topics 840 and 842.

Implementation of the lease accounting standard will most likely be delayed for Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) entities as well. On April 15, 2020, the GASB issued an exposure draft that would delay most GASB statements and implementation guides due to be implemented for fiscal years 2019 and later. Most notably, this includes Statement 84, Fiduciary Activities, and Statement 87, Leases. Comments on the proposal will be accepted through April 30, and the board plans to consider a final statement for issuance on May 8. More information may be found in this article from the Journal of Accountancy: GASB proposes postponing effective dates due to pandemic.

More information

Whether you are a FASB or GASB entity, you can expect a delay in the implementation of the lease standard. If you have questions, please contact a member of our financial statement audit team. For other COVID-19 related resources, please refer to BerryDunn’s COVID-19 Resources Page.

Related Professionals

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.

Article
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: September 8, 2020

We expect to receive guidance on how to determine what qualifies as lost revenue sometime in the fall, 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.

Article
Provider Relief Funds Single Audit

Read this if your organization, business, or institution has leases and you’ve been eagerly awaiting and planning for the implementation of the new lease standards.

Ready? Set? Not yet. As we have prepared for and experienced delays related to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases, and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 87, Leases, we thought the time had finally come for implementation. With the challenges that COVID-19 has brought to everyone, the FASB and GASB recognize the significant impact COVID-19 has had on commercial businesses, state and local governments, and not-for-profits and both have proposed delays in effective dates for various accounting standards, including both lease standards.

But wait, there’s more! In response to feedback FASB received during the comment period for the lease standard, the revenue recognition standard has also been extended. We didn’t see that coming, and expect that many organizations that didn’t opt for early adoption will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

FASB details and a deeper dive

On May 20, 2020, FASB voted to delay the effective date of the lease standard and the revenue recognition standard. A formal Accounting Standards Update (ASU) summarizing these changes will be released early June. Here’s what we know now:

  • Revenue recognition―for entities that have not yet issued financial statements, the effective date of the application of FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue Recognition, has been delayed by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019). This does not apply to public entities or nonpublic entities that are conduit debt obligors who previously adopted this guidance.
  • Leases―for entities that have not yet adopted the guidance from ASC 842, Leases, the effective date has been extended by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021).
  • Early adoption of either standard is still allowed.

FASB has also provided clarity on lease concessions that are highlighted in Topic 842. 

We recognize many lessors are making concessions due to the pandemic. Under current guidance in Topics 840 and 842, changes to lease contracts that were not included in the original lease are generally accounted for as lease modifications and, therefore, a separate contract. This would require remeasurement of the new lease contract and related right-of-use asset. 

FASB recognized this issue and has published a FASB Staff Questions and Answers (Q&A) Document, Topic 842 and Topic 840: Accounting for Lease Concessions Related to the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Under this new guidance, if lease concessions are made relating to COVID-19, entities do not need to analyze each contract to determine if a new contract has been entered into, and will have the option to apply, or not to apply, the lease modification provisions of Topics 840 and 842.

GASB details

On May 8, 2020, GASB issued Statement No. 95, Postponement of the Effective Dates of Certain Authoritative Guidance. GASB 95 extends the implementation dates of several pronouncements including:
•    Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities―extended by 12 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019)
•    Statement No. 87, Leases―extended by 18 months (effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021)

More information

If you have questions, please contact a member of our financial statement audit team. For other COVID-19 related resources, please refer to BerryDunn’s COVID-19 Resources Page.
 

Article
May 2020 accounting standard delay status: GASB and FASB

BerryDunn’s Healthcare/Not-for-Profit Practice Group members have been working closely with our clients as they navigate the effect the COVID-19 pandemic will have on their ability to sustain and advance their missions.

We have collected several of the questions we received, and the answers provided, so that you may also benefit from this information. We will be updating our COVID-19 Resources page regularly. If you have a question you would like to have answered, please contact Sarah Belliveau, Not-for-Profit Practice Area leader, at sbelliveau@berrydunn.com.

The following questions and answers have been compiled into categories: stabilization, cash flow, financial reporting, endowments and investments, employee benefits, and additional considerations.

STABILIZATION
Q: Is all relief focused on small to mid-size organizations? What can larger nonprofit organizations participate in for relief?
A:

We have learned that there is an as-yet-to-be-defined loan program for mid-sized employers between 500-10,000 employees. You can find information in the Loans Available for Nonprofits section (link below) of  the CARES Act as well as on the Independent Sector CARES Act web page, which will be updated regularly.

Q: Should I perform financial modeling so I can understand the impact this will have on my organization? Things are moving so fast, how do I know what federal programs are available to provide assistance?
A:

The first step in developing a short-term model to navigate the next few months is to gain an understanding of the programs available to provide assistance. These resources summarize some information about available programs:

Loans Available for Nonprofits in the CARES Act
Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA): FAQs for Businesses
CARES Act Tax Provisions for Not-for-Profit Organizations

The next step is to develop scenarios ranging from best case to worst case to analyze the potential impact of revenue and/or cost reductions on the organization. Modeling the various options available to you will help to determine which program is best for your organization. Each program achieves a different objective – for instance:

  • The Paycheck Protection Program can assist in retaining employees in the short term.
  • The Emergency Economic Injury Grants are helpful in covering a small immediate liquidity need.
  • The Small Business Debt Relief Program provides aid to those concerned with making SBA loan payments.

Additionally, consider non-federal options, such as discussing short-term deferrals with your current bank.

Q: How should I create a financial forecast/model for the next year?
A:

If you have the benefit of waiting, this is likely a time period in which it makes sense to delay significant in-depth forecasting efforts, particularly if your business environment is complicated or subject to significantly volatility as a result of recent events. The concern with beginning to model for future periods, outside of the next three-to-six months, is that you’ll be using information that is incomplete and ever-changing. This could lead to snap judgments that are short-term in nature and detrimental to long-term planning and success of your organization. 

With that said, we recognize that delaying this analysis will be unsettling to many CFOs and business managers who need to have a strategy moving forward. In developing this model for next year, consider the following elements of a strong model:

  1. Flexible and dynamic – Allow room for the model to adapt as more information is available and as additional insight is requested by your constituents (board members, department heads, lenders, etc.).
  2. Prioritize – Start with your big-ticket items. These should be the items that drive results for the organization. Determine what your top two to three revenue and expense categories are and focus on wrapping your arms around the future of those. From there, look for other revenue and expense sources that show correlation with one of the big two to three. Using a dynamic model, these should be automatically updated when assumptions on correlated items change. Don’t waste time on items that likely don’t impact decision making. Finally, build consensus on baseline assumptions, whether it be through management or accounting team, the board, or finance committee.
  3. Stress-test – Provide for the reality that your assumptions, and thus model, will be wrong. Develop scenarios that run from best-case to worst-case. Be honest with your assumptions.
  4. Identify levers – As you complete stress-testing, identify your action plan under different circumstances. What are expenditures that can be deferred in a worst-case scenario? What does staffing look like at various levels?
  5. Cash is king – The focus on forecasting and modeling is often on the net income of the organization and the cash flows generated. In a time such as this, the exercise is likely to focus on future liquidity. Remember to consider your non-income and expense items that impact cash flow, such as principal payments on debt service, planned additions to property & equipment, receipts on pledge payments, and others.  
CASH FLOW
Q: How can I alleviate cash flow strain in the near term?
A:

While the House and Senate have reacted quickly to bring needed relief to individuals and businesses across the country, the reality for most is that more will need to be done to stabilize. Operationally, obvious responses in the short term should be to eliminate all nonessential purchasing and maximize the billing and collection functions in accounts receivable. Another option is to utilize or increase an existing line of credit, or establish a new line of credit, to alleviate short term cash flow shortfalls. Organizations with investment portfolios can consider the prudence of increasing the spending draw on those funds. Rather than making a few drastic changes, organizations should take a multi-faceted approach to reduce the strain on cash flow while protecting the long term sustainability of the mission.

Q: How can I increase my organization’s reach to help with disaster relief? If we establish a special purpose fund, what should my organization be thinking about?
A:

Many organizations are looking for ways to increase their direct impact and give funding to individuals or organizations they may not have historically supported. For those who are want to expand their grant or gift making or want to establish a disaster relief fund, there are things to consider when doing so to help protect the organization. The nonprofit experts at Hemenway & Barnes share their thoughts on just how to do that.

FINANCIAL REPORTING
Q: What accounting standards have been delayed or are in the process of being delayed?
A:

FASB:
The $2.2 trillion stimulus package includes a provision that would allow banks the temporary option to delay compliance with the current expected credit losses (CECL) accounting standard. This would be delayed until the earlier end of the fiscal year or the end of the coronavirus national emergency.

GASB:
On March 26, 2020, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) announced it has added a project to its current technical agenda to consider postponing all Statement and Implementation Guide provisions with an effective date that begins on or after reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2018. The GASB has received numerous requests from state and local government officials and public accounting firms regarding postponing the upcoming effective dates of pronouncements as these state and local government offices are closed and officials do not have access to the information needed to implement the Statements. Most notably this would include Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities, and Statement No. 87, Leases.

The Board plans to consider an Exposure Draft for issuance in April and finalize the guidance in May 2020.

ENDOWMENTS AND INVESTMENTS 
Q: What should I consider with regard to endowments?
A:

Many nonprofits with endowments are considering ways to balance an increased reliance on their investment portfolios with the responsibility to protect and preserve the spending power of donor-restricted gifts. Some things to think about include the existence (or absence) of true restrictions, spending variations under the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) applicable in your state, borrowing from an endowment, or requesting from the donor the release of restrictions. All need to be balanced with the intended duration and preservation of the endowment fund. Hemenway & Barnes shares their thoughts relative to the utilization of endowments during this time of need.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Q: We are going to suspend our retirement plan match through June 30, 2020 and I picked a start date of April 1st. What we need help with is our bi-weekly payroll (which is for HOURLY employees). Their next pay date is April 3rd, for time worked through March 28th. Time worked March 29-31 would be paid on April 17th. How should we handle the match during this period for the hourly employees?
A:

The key for determining what to include for the matching calculation is when it is paid, not when it was earned. If the amendment is effective April 1st, then any amounts paid after April 1st would not have matching contributions calculated. This means that the amounts paid on April 3rd would not have any matching contributions calculated.

Q: Can you please provide guidance on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and how it may impact my organization?
A:

On March 30th, BerryDunn published a blog post to help answer your questions around the FFCRA.

If you have additional questions, please contact one of our Employee Benefit Plan professionals

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Q: I heard there was going to be an incentive for charitable giving in the new act. What's that all about?
A:

According to Sections 2204 and 2205 of the CARES Act:

  • Up to $300 of charitable contributions can be taken as a deduction in calculating adjusted gross income (AGI) for the 2020 tax year. This will provide a tax benefit even to those who do not itemize.
  • For the 2020 tax year, the tax cap has been lifted for:
    • Individuals-from 60% of AGI to 100%
    • Corporations-annual limit is raised from 10% to 25% (for food donations this is raised from 15% to 25%)
Q: Have you heard if the May 15th tax deadline will be extended?
A:

Unfortunately, we have not heard. As of April 6th, the deadline has not been extended.

Q: Could you please summarize for me the tax provisions in the CARES Act that you think are most applicable to not-for-profits?
A: Absolutely! Our not-for-profit tax professionals have compiled this document, which provides a high-level outline of tax provisions in the CARES Act that we believe would be of interest to our clients.

We are here to help
Please contact the BerryDunn not-for-profit team if you have any questions, or would like to discuss your specific situation.

Article
COVID-19 FAQs—Not-for-Profit Edition

As we begin the second year of Uniform Guidance, here’s what we’ve learned from year one, and some strategies you can use to approach various challenges, all told from a runner's point of view.

A Runner’s Perspective

As I began writing this article, the parallels between strategies that I use when competing in road races — and the strategies that we have used in navigating the Uniform Guidance — started to emerge. I’ve been running competitively for six years, and one of the biggest lessons I’ve learned is that implementing real-time adjustments to various challenges that pop up during a race makes all the difference between crossing — or falling short of — the finish line. This lesson also applies to implementing Uniform Guidance. On your mark, get set, go!

Challenge #1: Unclear Documentation

Federal awarding agencies have been unclear in the documentation within original awards, or funding increments, making it hard to know which standards to follow: the previous cost circulars, or the Uniform Guidance?

Racing Strategy: Navigate Decision Points

Take the time to ask for directions. In a long race, if you’re apprehensive about what’s ahead, stop and ask a volunteer at the water station, or anywhere else along the route.

If there is a question about the route you need to take in order to remain compliant with the Uniform Guidance, it’s your responsibility to reach out to the respective agency single audit coordinators or program officials. Unlike in a race, where you have to ask questions on the fly, it’s best to document your Uniform Guidance questions and answers via email, and make sure to retain your documentation.  Taking the time to make sure you’re headed in the right direction will save you energy, and lost time, in the long run.    

Challenge #2: Subrecipient Monitoring

The responsibilities of pass-through entities (PTEs) have significantly increased under the Uniform Guidance with respect to subaward requirements. Under OMB Circular A-133, the guidance was not very explicit on what monitoring procedures needed to be completed with regard to subrecipients. However, it was clear that monitoring to some extent was a requirement.

Racing Strategy: Keep a Healthy Pace

Take the role of “pacer” in your relationships with subrecipients. In a long-distance race, pacers ensure a fast time and avoid excessive tactical racing. By taking on this role, you can more efficiently fulfill your responsibilities under the Uniform Guidance.

Under the Uniform Guidance, a PTE must:

  • Perform risk assessments on its subrecipients to determine where to devote the most time with its monitoring procedures.
  • Provide ongoing monitoring, which includes site visits, provide technical assistance and training as necessary, and arrange for agreed-upon procedures to the extent needed.
  • Verify subrecipients have been audited under Subpart F of the Uniform Guidance, if they meet the threshold.
  • Report and follow up on any noncompliance at the subrecipient level.
  • The time you spend determining the energy you need to expend, and the support you need to lend to your subrecipients will help your team perform at a healthy pace, and reach the finish line together.

Challenge #3: Procurement Standards

The procurement standards within the Uniform Guidance are similar to those under OMB Circular A-102, which applied to state and local governments. They are likely to have a bigger impact on those entities that were subject to OMB Circular A-110, which applied to higher education institutions, hospitals, and other not-for-profit organizations.

Racing Strategy: Choose the Right Equipment

Do your research before procuring goods and services. In the past, serious runners had limited options when it came to buying new shoes and food to boost energy. With the rise of e-commerce, we can now purchase everything faster and cheaper online than we can at our local running store. But is this really an improvement?

Under A-110, we were guided to make prudent decisions, but the requirements were less stringent. Now, under Uniform Guidance, we must follow prescribed guidelines.

Summarized below are some of the differences between A-110 and the Uniform Guidance:

A-110 UNIFORM GUIDANCE
Competition
Procurement transaction shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition.
Competition
Procurement transaction must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section.
 
Procurement
Organizations must establish written procurement procedures, which avoid purchasing unnecessary items, determine whether lease or purchase is most economical and practical, and in solicitation provide requirements for awards.
Procurement
Organizations must use one of the methods provided in this section:
  1. Procurement by Micro Purchase (<$3,000)
  2. Procurement by Small Purchase Procedures (<$150,000)
  3. Procurement by Sealed Bids
  4. Procurement by Competitive Proposal
  5. Procurement by Noncompetitive Proposal

While the process is more stringent under the Uniform Guidance, you still have the opportunity to choose the vendor or product best suited to the job. Just make sure you have the documentation to back up your decision.

A Final Thought
Obviously, this article is not an all-inclusive list of the changes reflected in the Uniform Guidance. Yet we hope that it does provide direction as you look for new grant awards and revisit internal policies and procedures.

And here’s one last tip: Do you know the most striking parallel that I see between running a race and implementing the Uniform Guidance? The value of knowing yourself.

It’s important to know what your challenges are, and to have the self-awareness to see when and where you will need help. And if you ever need someone to help you navigate, set the pace, or provide an objective perspective on purchasing equipment, let us know. We’re with you all the way to the finish line.

Grant Running.jpg

Article
A runner's guide to Uniform Guidance, year two

Read this if you have a responsibility for victim notification.

Is your state complying with state and federal victim notification system statutes? How do you know if you are (or aren’t)? The federal government passed the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act in 1990. This act requires all federal law enforcement officers and employees to make their best efforts to accord victims of crime with the right to be notified of offender status changes (i.e., movement from incarceration to the community). All states have similar statutes; many are more prescriptive and specific to each state.

You may be thinking “we have implemented a victim notification system, we’re all set.” To be sure, it’s best practice to ask yourself these questions:

  • Does my state use multiple victim notification systems, possibly one for the Department of Corrections, and others in use for jails, courts, or by the prosecutor’s office?
  • Do victims understand how to register and use the system(s)?
  • If you have multiple systems in use across your state, do victims know they must register in each (assuming that the offender is nomadic)?
  • Are the systems interfacing with the victim notification system to provide real-time updates regarding offender status changes and movements, or is the data reliant on human entry alone?
  • Is there redundancy in your victim notification approach? Are you relying solely on the victim notification system for statutory compliance, or are there other measures in place?
  • Have you defined the term “victim” in your state? How do you distinguish “known victims” from “interested parties”? Are these two groups treated equally in your victim notification systems and processes?

As we have explored these questions with various corrections clients, we’ve found that states address them in unique ways. In many cases, initial information regarding victims is captured on a pad of paper; in some, that information is never transposed into electronic form. Smaller, rural jails are more inclined to manually reach out to victims in their tight-knit communities, while jails in larger jurisdictions may not have the capacity to do so, and rely much more heavily on automation to comply with victim notification requirements. 

Many states use multiple victim notification systems (jails may use one system, while prisons use another), without integrating them to share data about offender movements and victim registrations. This results in a gap of service to victims likely unaware of the ramifications of having multiple, disparate victim notification systems. Many mature victim notification systems have the ability to interface with systems such as offender management systems (typically managed by the state’s department of corrections), jail management systems (typically managed by each county sheriff’s office), prosecution systems, and others. 

These system integrations are critical to reducing redundancy and increasing the timeliness with which both offender and victim data is entered into the victim notification system and used to trigger the notifications themselves.

So how can you assess your processes? The first step is to determine if your state has a problem with, or compliance gap between current practices and victim notification statutes. Here are some steps you can take to assess your situation:

  1. Review the victim notification statutes in your state
  2. Inventory the victim notification systems in use across your state, including any interfaces that may exist with the systems described earlier
  3. Talk to victim advocates to learn more about how they use the systems to augment their efforts
  4. Connect with representatives within your state department of corrections, sheriff’s offices, prosecutors, courts, probation, and other groups that may be providing some level of victim advocacy and learn more about their concerns

If this is all overwhelming, try and take it one step at a time. You can also engage a professional consulting firm that can help you organize and systematically assess the problem, then collaborate with you to develop a plan to close the gaps. 

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety team. We're here to help. To learn more about other choices in victim notification procedures and systems, stay tuned for our second article in this series, where we explore options for acquiring and implementing a statewide victim notification system.

Article
Risky business: Multiple jurisdictional Victim Notification Systems

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor.

In our previous article, we looked at three primary areas we, or a potential vendor, consider when responding to a request for services. In this follow-up, we look at additional factors that influence the decision-making process on whether a potential vendor decides to respond to a request for services.

  • Relationship with this state/entity―Is this a state or client that we have worked with before? Do we understand their business and their needs?

    A continuing relationship allows us to understand the client’s culture and enables us to perform effectively and efficiently. By establishing a good relationship, we can assure the client that we can perform the services as outlined and at a fair cost.
  • Terms and conditions, performance bonds, or service level agreements―Are any of these items unacceptable? If there are concerns, can we request exceptions or negotiate with the state?

    When we review a request for services our legal and executive teams assess the risk of agreeing to the state’s terms and compare them against our existing contract language. States might consider requesting vendors provide exceptions to terms and conditions in their bid response to open the door for negotiations. Not allowing exceptions can result in vendors assuming that all terms are non-negotiable and may limit the amount of vendor bid responses received or increase the cost of the proposal.

    The inclusion of well-defined service level agreements (SLAs) in requests for proposals (RFPs) can be an effective way to manage resulting contracts. However, SLAs with undefined or punitive performance standards, compliance calculations, and remedies can also cause a vendor to consider whether to submit a bid response.

    RFPs for states that require performance bonds may result in significantly fewer proposals submitted, as the cost of a performance bond may make the total cost of the project too high to be successfully completed. If not required by law that vendors obtain performance bonds, states may want to explore other effective contractual protections that are more impactful than performance bonds, such as SLAs, warranties, and acceptance criteria.
  • Mandatory requirements―Are we able to meet the mandatory requirements? Does the cost of meeting these requirements keep us in a competitive range?

    Understanding the dichotomy between mandatory requirements and terms and conditions can be challenging, because in essence, mandatory requirements are non-negotiable terms and conditions. A state may consider organizing mandatory requirements into categories (e.g., system requirements, project requirements, state and federal regulations). This can help potential vendors determine whether all of the mandatory requirements are truly non-negotiable. Typically, vendors are prepared to meet all regulatory requirements, but not necessarily all project requirements.
  • Onsite/offsite requirements―Can we meet the onsite/offsite requirements? Do we already have nearby resources available? Are any location requirements negotiable?

    Onsite/offsite requirements have a direct impact on the project cost. Factors include accessibility of the onsite location, frequency of required onsite participation, and what positions/roles are required to be onsite or local. These requirements can make the resource pool much smaller when RFPs require staff to be located in the state office or require full-time onsite presence. And as a result, we may decide not to respond to the RFP.

    If the state specifies an onsite presence for general positions (e.g., project managers and business analysts), but is more flexible on onsite requirements for technical niche roles, the state may receive more responses to their request for services and/or more qualified consultants.
  • Due date of the proposal―Do we have the available proposal staff and subject matter experts to complete a quality proposal in the time given?

    We consider several factors when looking at the due date, including scope, the amount of work necessary to complete a quality response, and the proposal’s due date. A proposal with a very short due date that requires significant work presents a challenge and may result in less quality responses received.
  • Vendor available staffing―Do we have qualified staff available for this project? Do we need to work with subcontractors to get a complete team?

    We evaluate when the work is scheduled to begin to ensure we have the ability to provide qualified staff and obtain agreements with subcontractors. Overly strict qualifications that narrow the pool of qualified staff can affect whether we are able to respond. A state might consider whether key staff really needs a specific certification or skill or, instead, the proven ability to do the required work.

    For example, technical staff may not have worked on this particular type of project, but on a similar one with easily transferable skills. We have several long-term relationships with our subcontractors and find they can be an integral part of the services we propose. If carefully managed and vetted, we feel subcontractors can be an added value for the states.
  • Required certifications (e.g., Project Management Professional® (PMP®), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) certification)―Does our staff have the required certifications that are needed to complete this project?

    Many projects requests require specific certifications. On a small project, maybe other certifications can help ensure that we have the skills required for a successful project. Smaller vendors, particularly, might not have PMP®-certified staff and so may be prohibited from proposing on a project that they could perform with high quality.
  • Project timeline―Is the timeline to complete the project reasonable and is our staff available during the timeframe needed for each position for the length of the project?

    A realistic and reasonable timeline is critical for the success of a project. This is a factor we consider as we identify any clear or potential risks. A qualified vendor will not provide a proposal response to an unrealistic project timeline, without requesting either to negotiate the contract or requesting a change order later in the project. If the timeline is unrealistic, the state also runs the risk that the vendor will create many change requests, leading to a higher cost.

Other things we consider when responding to a request for services include: is there a reasonable published budget, what are the minority/women-owned business (M/WBE) requirements, and are these new services that we are interested in and do they fit within our company's overall business objectives?

Every vendor may have their own checklist and/or process that they go through before making a decision to propose on new services. We are aware that states and their agencies want a wide-variety of high-quality responses from which to choose. Understanding the key areas that a proposer evaluates may help states provide requirements that lead to more high-quality and better value proposals. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.

Article
What vendors want: Other factors that influence vendors when considering responding to a request for services