Skip to Main Content

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

Every published request for services aims to acquire the highest-quality services for the best value. Requests may be as simple as an email to a qualified vendor list or as formal as a request for proposal (RFP) published on a state’s procurement website. However big or small the request, upon receiving it, we, or a potential vendor, triages it using the following primary criteria:

  1. Scope of services―Are these services or solutions we can provide? If we can’t provide the entire scope of services, do we have partners that can?
    As a potential responding vendor, we review the scope of services to see if it is clearly defined and provides enough detail to help us make a decision to pursue the proposal. Part of this review is to check if there are specific requests for products or solutions, and if the requests are for products or solutions that we provide or that we can easily procure to support the scope of work. 
  2. Qualifications―What are the requirements and can we meet them?
    We verify that we can supply proofs of concept to validate experience and qualification requirements. We check to see if the requirements and required services/solutions are clearly defined and we confirm that we have the proof of experience to show the client. Strict or inflexible requirements may mean a new vendor is unable to propose new and innovative services and may not be the right fit.
  3. Value―Is this a service request that we can add value to? Will it provide fair compensation?
    We look to see if we can perform the services or provide the solution at a rate that meets the client’s budget. Sometimes, depending upon the scope of services, we can provide services at a rate typically lower than our competitors. Or, conversely, though we can perform the scope of services, the software/hardware we would have to purchase might make our cost lower in value to the client than a well-positioned competitor.

An answer of “no” on any of the above questions typically means that we will pass on responding to the opportunity. 

The above questions are primary considerations. There are other factors when we consider an opportunity, such as where the work is located in comparison to our available resources and if there is an incumbent vendor with a solid and successful history. We will consider these and other factors in our next article. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.
 

Article
What vendors want: Vendor decision process in answering requests for services

Read this if you administer a 401(k) plan.

On December 20, 2019, the Setting Every Community up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act was signed into law. The SECURE Act makes several changes to 401(k) plan requirements. Among those changes is a change to the permissible minimum service requirements.  
 
Many 401(k) retirement plan sponsors have elected to set up minimum service requirements for their plan. Such requirements help eliminate administrative burden of offering participation to part-time employees who may then participate in the plan for a short period of time and then keep their balance within the plan. Although plan sponsors do have the ability to process force-out distributions for smaller account balances, a minimum service requirement, such as one year of service, can help eliminate this situation altogether.  

Long-term part-time employees now eligible

The SECURE Act will now require that long-term part-time employees be offered participation in 401(k) plans if they are over the age of 21. The idea behind the requirement is that 401(k) plans are responsible for an increasingly larger amount of employees’ retirement income. Therefore, it is essential that part-time employees, some of which may not have a full-time job, have the ability to save for retirement.  
 
Long-term is defined as any employee who works three consecutive years with 500 or more hours worked each year. This new secondary service requirement becomes effective January 1, 2021. Previous employment will not count towards the three-year requirement. Therefore, the earliest a long-term part-time employee may become eligible to participate in a plan under the secondary service requirement is January 1, 2024.  

403(b) plans not affected 

Please note this provision is only applicable for 401(k) plans and does not impact 403(b) plans, which are subject to universal availability. Furthermore, although long-term part-time employees will be allowed to make elective deferrals into 401(k) plans, management may choose whether to provide non-elective or matching contributions to such participants. These participants also may be excluded from nondiscrimination and top-heavy requirements.  
 
This requirement will create unique tracking challenges as plans will need to track hours worked for recurring part-time employees over multiple years. For instance, seasonal employees who elect to work multiple seasons may inadvertently become eligible. We recommend plans work with their record keepers and/or third-party administrators to implement a tracking system to ensure participation is offered to those who meet this new secondary service requirement. If a feasible tracking solution does not exist, or plans do not want to deal with the burden of tracking such information, plans may also consider amending their minimum service requirements by reducing the hours of service requirement from 1,000 hours to 500 hours or less. However, this may allow more employees to participate than under the three-year, 500-hour requirement and may increase the employer contributions each year. 

If you have questions regarding your particular situation, please contact our Employee Benefit Audits team. We’re here to help.

Article
New permissible minimum service requirements for 401(k) plans

Read this is you are a business owner or an advisor to business owners.

With continued uncertainty in the business environment stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, now may be a good time to utilize trust, gift, and estate strategies in the transfer of privately held business interests. 

As discussed in our May 26, 2020 article 2020 estate strategies in times of uncertainty for privately held business owners, there may be opportunity to free up considerable portions of lifetime gift and estate tax exemption amounts. This is possible due to suppressed values of privately held businesses and the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the 2020 presidential election on tax rates and future exemption and exclusion thresholds.

An element to consider is the ability to transfer non-controlling interests in a business. These interests are potentially subject to discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability. The discounts may further reduce the overall value transferred through a given strategy, potentially offloading a larger percentage of ownership in a business while retaining large portions of the gift and estate lifetime exemption. Part I of this series focused on the discount for lack of control. In Part II, let’s focus on the discount for lack of marketability.

Discount for lack of marketability

In the context of a hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller, the buyer may place a greater value on an ownership interest of an investment that is “marketable.” Marketable investments can be bought and sold easily and offer the ability to extract liquidity compared to an interest where transferability and marketability are limited. 

Simply put, buyers would rather own investments they can sell easily, and will pay less for the investment if it lacks this ability. Non-controlling interests in private businesses lack marketability—few people are interested in investing in a business where control rests in someone else’s hands. Discounts for lack of control commonly reduce the value of the transferred interest by 5% to 15%, discounts for lack of marketability can drop value of the business by 25% to 35%.

Market-based evidence of proxies for discounts for lack of marketability can be found within the following resources, studies, and methods (including, but not limited to):

  • Various restricted stock studies
  • The Quantitative Marketability Discount Model (QMDM) developed by Z. Christopher Mercer
  • Various pre-initial public offering studies
  • Option pricing models
  • Other discounted cash flow models

In addition to these resources, to fully assess the degree of discount applicable to a subject interest, consider company-specific factors when estimating the discount for lack of marketability. The degree of marketability is dependent upon a wide range of factors, such as the payment of dividends, the existence of a pool of prospective buyers, the size of the interest, any restrictions on transfer, and other factors. 

To establish a comprehensive view on the applicable degree of discount, here are more things go consider. In a ruling on the case Mandelbaum v. Commissioner1, Judge David Laro outlined the primary company-specific factors affecting the discount for lack of marketability, including:

  1. Restrictions on transferability and withdrawal
  2. Financial statement analysis
  3. Dividend policy
  4. The size and nature of the interest
  5. Management decisions
  6. Amount of control in the transferred shares

Conclusion

Business owners are knowledgeable of the facts and circumstances surrounding a business interest. They take a close look at what they are buying before they make an offer. Like most people, they prefer investments they can readily convert into cash, and are therefore generally not willing to pay the pro-rata value for a minority interest in a business when the interest lacks marketability. To assess an appropriate discount for lack of marketability, consider resources such as those referred to above, then ensure selected discounts are appropriate based on the factors specific to the company and interest being valued. 

Our mission at BerryDunn remains constant in helping each client create, grow, and protect value. If you have questions about your unique situation, or would like more information, please contact the business valuation consulting team.

Part III of this series will focus on the application of DLOC and DLOM to a subject interest.

1Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-255 (June 13, 1995).

Article
Discounts for lack of control and marketability in business valuations (Part II)

Read this if you are a bank with over $1 billion in assets.

It’s no secret COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on the economy. As unemployment soared and the economy teetered on the edge of collapse, unprecedented government stimulus attempted to stymie the COVID-19 tidal wave. One tool used by the government was the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the PPP initially authorized the lending of $349 billion to encourage businesses to keep workers employed and cover certain operating expenses during the coronavirus pandemic. The PPP was then extended through August 8, 2020 with an additional $310 billion authorized.

Many financial institutions scrambled to free up resources and implement processes to handle the processing of PPP loan applications. However, such underwriting poses unique challenges for financial institutions. PPP loans are 100% guaranteed by the US Small Business Administration (SBA) if the borrowers meet certain criteria. Establishing appropriate controls over the loan approval and underwriting process is more a matter of ensuring compliance with the PPP, rather than ensuring the borrower can repay their loan.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 compliance 

Banks with total assets over $1 billion as of the beginning of their fiscal year must comply with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA). Amongst other things, FDICIA requires management perform an assessment and provide a resulting attestation on the operating effectiveness of the bank’s internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) as of the bank’s fiscal year-end. Although this attestation is as of year-end, management must perform testing of the bank’s ICFR throughout the bank’s fiscal year to obtain sufficient evidence regarding the operating effectiveness of ICFR as of year-end. Key controls over various transaction cycles are typically housed in a matrix, making it easy for management and other users, such as independent auditors, to review a bank’s key ICFR. 

Internal control documentation

If the process for originating PPP loans is different from the bank’s process for traditional loan products, it’s likely the internal controls surrounding this process is also different. Given that $659 billion in PPP loans have been granted to date, it is possible PPP loans may be material to individual banks’ balance sheets. If PPP loans are material to your bank’s balance sheet, you should consider the controls that were put in place. If the controls are deemed to be different from those already documented for other types of loans, you should document such controls as new controls in your FDICIA matrix and test accordingly.

As noted earlier, the risks a financial institution faces with PPP loans are likely different from traditional underwriting. If these unique risks could impact amounts reported in the financial statements, it’s smart to address them through the development of internal controls. Banks should assess their individual situations to identify any risks that may have not previously existed. For instance, given the volume of PPP loans originated in such a short period of time, quality control processes may have been stretched to their limits. The result could be PPP loans inaccurately set up in the loan accounting system or loan files missing key information. Depending on the segregation of duties, the risk could even be the creation of fictitious PPP loans. A detective internal control that could address inaccurate loan setup would be to scan a list of PPP loans for payment terms, maturity dates, or interest rates that appear to be outliers. Given the relatively uniform terms for PPP loans, any anomalies should be easily identifiable. 

Paycheck Protection Program loan fees

Aside from internal controls surrounding the origination of PPP loans, banks may also need to consider documenting internal controls surrounding PPP loan fees received by the SBA. Although the accounting for such fees is not unique, given the potential materiality to the income statement, documenting such a control, even if it is merely addressing the fees in an already existing control, exhibits that management has considered the impact PPP loan fees may have on their ICFR. 

The level of risk associated with PPP loan fees may differ from institution to institution. For instance, a bank that is calculating its PPP loan fees manually rather than relying on the loan accounting system to record and subsequently recognize income on these fees, inherently has more risk. This additional level of risk will need to be addressed in the development and documentation of internal controls. In this example, a periodic recalculation of PPP loan fees on a sample basis, including income recognition, may prove to be a sufficient internal control.

With the calendar year-end fast approaching, it is time to take a hard look at those FDICIA matrices, if you haven’t already done so:

  • Consider what has changed at your bank during the fiscal year and how those changes have impacted the design and operation of your internal controls. 
  • Ensure that what is happening in practice agrees to what is documented within your FDICIA matrix. 
  • Ensure that new activities, such as the origination of PPP loans, are adequately documented in your FDICIA matrix. 

With Congress considering another round of PPP loans, there is no time like the present to make sure your bank is ready from an ICFR perspective. If you have questions about your specific situation, or would like more information, please contact the FDICIA compliance team

Article
Do your FDICIA controls "CARES" about the Paycheck Protection Program?

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification or modernization efforts.

You can listen to the companion podcast to this article now:


Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to have been a trusted partner in several states working to evolve the certification process. Through this collaboration with CMS and state partners, we have been in front of recent certification trends. 

What is outcomes-based certification (OBC)? 

OBC (or streamlined modular certification) is a fascinating evolution in MES certification. OBC represents a fundamental rethinking of certification and how we measure the success of system implementation and modernization efforts. The prior certification approach, as many know it, is centrally focused on technical capability, answering the question, “Can the system perform the required functions?” 

OBC represents a shift away from this technical certification and toward business process improvement, instead answering the question, “How is this new technology enhancing the Medicaid program?” Or, put differently, “Is this new technology helping my Medicaid program achieve its desired outcomes?” 

What are the key differences between the MECT and OBC? 

To understand the differences, we have to first talk about what isn’t changing. Technical criteria still exist, but only so far as CMS is confirming compliance with core regulatory and statutory requirements—including CMS’ Standards and Conditions. That’s about the extent of the similarities. In addition to pivoting to business process improvement, we understand that CMS is looking to generalize certification under this new approach, meaning that we wouldn’t see the same Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA)-tied checklists like Provider Management, or Decision Support Systems. Instead, we might expect more generalized guidance that would allow for a more tailored certification. 

Additionally, OBC introduces outcomes statements which serve as the guiding principles for certification. Everything, including the technical criteria, roll-up into an outcome statement. This type of roll up might actually feel familiar, as we see a similar structure in how Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) criteria rolled up into critical success factors. 

The biggest difference, and the one states need to understand above all else, is the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPIs aren’t just point-in-time certification measures, they are expected to be reported against regularly—say, quarterly—in order to maintain enhanced funding. Additionally, it’s likely that each criterion will have an associated KPI, meaning that states will continue to be accountable to these criteria long after the Certification Final Review. 

How are KPIs developed? 

We’ve seen KPIs developed in two ways. For more strategic, high level KPIs, CMS develops a baseline set of KPIs heading into collaborating with a state on an OBC effort. In these instances, CMS has historically sought input on whether those KPIs are reasonable and can be easily reported against. CMS articulates what it wants to measure conceptually, and works with a state to ensure that the KPI achieves that within the scope of a state’s program.  

For KPIs specific to a state’s Medicaid program, CMS engages with states to draft new KPIs. In these instances, we’ve seen CMS partner with states to understand the business need for the new system, how it fits into the Medicaid enterprise, and what the desired outcome of the particular approach is. 

What should states consider as they plan for MES procurements? 

While there might be many considerations pertaining to OBC and procurements, two are integral to success. First—as CMS noted in the virtual MESC session earlier this month—engage CMS at the idea stage of a project. Experience tells us that CMS is ready and willing to collaborate with—and incorporate the needs of—states that engage at this idea stage. That early collaboration will help shape the certification path. 

Second, consider program outcomes when conceptualizing the procurement. Keep these outcomes central to base procurement language, requirements, and service level agreements. We’re likely to see the need for states to incorporate these outcomes into contracts. 

What does this mean for MES modularity and scalability? 

Based on our current understanding of the generalization of certification, states, and subsequently the industry at large, will continue to refine what modularity means based on Medicaid program needs. Scalability represents an interesting question, as we’ve seen OBC scaled horizontally across smaller, discrete business areas like pharmacy or provider management. Now we’re seeing the beginnings of vertical scaling of a more streamlined certification approach to larger components of the enterprise, such as financial management and claims processing. 

The certification landscape is seemingly changing weekly as states wait eagerly for CMS’ next guidance issuances. Please continue to check back for in-depth analyses and OBC success stories. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our Medicaid Consulting team

Article
Considerations for outcomes-based certification