Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-10 92-384 ORDER-- Council Anion — Date - August_10a_1992_ Item NO. __92-- 8 Item/Subject: Appointment Of City Auditor for FY92 Responsible Department: Finance i-r'accest for p(u+osalSwas made for auditing services for FY1992 and five Proposals were received. v R review com- mittee made up of the Finance Director, Purchasing Agent, School Business Manager, Airport Financial. Manager and two City Accountants eparatly reviewed the 1:ePhnica1 Proposals and made a recommandatLium concerning the quality of the proposal, experience and expertise of the respondent, staffing and staffing utilizations. The recommedcation based on the the technical proposal is to selectRunyon, Kersteen, Ouellette and Lessard, South Portland. Following reveiw of the technical proposals, the sealed Price Proposals w wed. RKOI_ was the high price Proposal. After discussion the review committee recommended and to RKOL based upon Its techincal p poaal. The Item was re rev iwad by the Finance Commltt ee whiln/aide noirecommendation. ------------------------------------ -- ____________ __ __________________.__ Manager's Comment'- AF- Pm., n /(f'prJ 0. nom` —ten y1tt �O Dtca"Gi g,Uui a . City Manager -------------------- Associated Information: F inance Director __ ___ ______----------------------------------------------- Introduced ______.__.._________ ___-__________...______--__ Legal Approval: Ian}troduced For: [g passage / / First Reading / / Referral 92-386 Arsipked to(:uundor .axl, A,g,St IU, 1992 CITY OF BANGOR (TUTEE.) Mrbgr,t.of city -P ditar for m2 _.... _... BY Lk CYh Cosset! Of as C" Of BMW. ORDERED. - .. . THAT The City Council hereby appoints m City A ditor for the fi vl year mxdLy S 30, 1992 at an L lissive aulit fee not to � $ in acrordatee with a proposal sulb it by the nmmd audit f= and aooept by the City in response to a Pequeer for Plopceais dated Sum n, 1992{ and W 1T PIRaR90l OILLBOED, TfWT a contract for lmlyrect Cost Allocation plan is hereby aserded to the same fim for a price not to etcced 92-384.. ORDER Title, i /��•"1\i5: Appointment of city auditor for FY 92 J m In city Council August 10, 1992 Vote to Divide the Question in two parts Passed Vote 5 yes 2 2 absent oting yes Cohen. Frankel, Sawyer,Soucy, Stone Voting No Baldacci, Saxl ' Absent Blanchette. Bragg Council voted conflict for Councilor Soucy - passed Vote 5 Yes 2 No 2 Absent voting yes Baldacci. Frankel, Seal, Soucy Sawyer Voting No Cohen, Stone Absent Blanchette, Bragg Vote to amend by adding the Names Runyon, forecast. Coalesce and Lessard in she space provided in the first part failed passage vote 1 yes 5 no 2 Absent 1 abstained Voting Yes Seel Voting No Baldacci, Frankel, Cohen, Sawyer. Stone Absent Blanchette, Bragg Soucy "staining ....n..�.J................... 4....... $g o. Assigned to ...... ....... Councilman - Order failed passage Order reconsidered Vote to Amend the first part by adding the names Brantner, Thibodeau in the space provided Passed vote 6 yes I abstained 2 absent voting yes Baldacci. Cohen. Frankel, Sawyer Sell, Stone Absent Blanchette, Bragg Abstaining Soucy Vote to amend the 2nd part by adding the names Brantner, Thibodeau in the space provided Failed Passage - Vote 2 yes 4 no t abstained 2 absent voting yes Baldacci, Noel, Voting No Cohen. Frankel, Sawyer Stone Abstaining Soucy Ageent -Blanchette, Bragg "to to emend the 2nd part by,adding the names laeger 6 Ade in the space provided Passed Passed Vote 4 yes 2 no 1 abstained 1 absent voting yes Cohen,Frankel, Sawyer, Stone voting No Baldacci, Saxl Absent Blanchette, Bragg Abstaining Soucy Amended in the lot part by adding $20,000 in the space provided - Amended in the 2nd part by adding $5,936 in the space provided j yfyr({P d' m, C //ir.._ City Clerk July 29r 1992 � 2S TO: £inazss Cc mitten R: .TOM Qeartararo, £inures Director Aadit Prop»sals for n 1992 ane city solicitai proposals for audit services for n 1992. a4ose pts were received on July 15, 1992. abs prcgosals move suTmitted in two parts: 1. a technical prvpw s which poaided info hon about the f=an and its expexierle and qualiflcatimma to perfow an audit of the city, information about the �y personnel win would bo assigned to the audit, arch iI:£ormatfon stout the approach the firm mould tslm in p rforning the audit; and, 2. a cost p al. A review ccwum s mrcie up of t following personnel irdivid nilly xevie�d the technical proposals wddle the cost proposals aero stiil sealed and separately rates rl Sr finis on tha quality of their pampnsals. John Quart tarol Finance Di to %fchard l ' $ l Business iamngar David Pellegrino, PurchasLg Argent Sally Burg e, Aixp= Finarc» Munger Jayne ptls ' City Accountant tBWrah Cyr, city Pcc untant. 9a committee met on July 29, 1992 at 10:30 m, discussai.a first, recrn:mrcle3 a fi= based on the f cnical proposals and thm nsvf the cost proposals. a cvm:ittee stronglyxx �s tte pxcgcsal of Avgvn, sersteen, Ouellette arcs leasard of South lt, tlaM for a not to eroeed price of $35,920. This is the high bid price, arca tla renrnnerciation is based upon tha quality of tic taMfcal proposal suGnit�, and the eqv ience FII(II, }:as in municipal audits, including the City of ict toa which is larger than Bangor as well as the Cities of Auburn arci Augusta. ane other bidcYrs fn order of the bid price were: 1. Bxantner, aidbatleau $ 20,000 2. lager, I 'ua 20,910 3. Ion Herodias 6 Co. 26,036 4. Banks 6 Cancer 34,760. In terns of location, Econtrer, Iagsr and Brwlrc and Bangor finis; Beauliau is Exam 1brtleM and I is fun South x and. In reviewing the technical aspacs of tl proposals tha following iten were censice : 1. :ndep� fun the city, 2. ccntinuir' ycation for its per 1, 3. any conflict with other city wrk Z� 4. external quality control, and 5. Ue ability ofUw p poser to follow x inatxucti . Tfiase itaws ower mandatory eleenFs for mnsidemtfon. A though lager, Me did not mcet the "follows inctxnot " elamnt sire a wsrber of requested anu}xr ower no specified tiara the wee their pxolusal waS still considered. Es rieree a ExFerr+m a^cowmted for 506 of the pofms to be exetr'sd A y B cnreln n' Section loop to s atlas the city washiring to perfc m slow audit, not just the £dm but r t paraoral attaches to Ue firm. Tse following firs pruvd a stat nt of ezpeeimre for t key peri 1, ffi , lager az Barrer. Beaulieu awl F2M provided mammas with mom i omation inclw g pmfessi Cackgmund, education, year of if iw, mncaticn and other related ml roe -related activities. aTe persowel sketches covered a caUnn, tore at the resPa firm aM pro£aasional Sntzrests. SLdlar Engag t for the labs five year, to a nerinma of five engagermmts: T s section lozkii to see what ct wr nrdcipale the fir bad e ro fence with in tlw last five ytvrs, arcs tlme a t of r:,.n it trek to do the and t. Iagar did not specify which Cld m its mfererce list were perf0>mrl wiUtin the last five years. They did not identify these that tMy considered similar to Bangor nor tlw nus of await M eigagei. Bran indicates that they provlded 6,000 mdit lrmm for govemmenYal units in 1991. The ]Sat for five nost Significant Sf ewpgaoaRe d iW the last flue years fnclude tm cities, T9w- City of Old lbxn ard the City of Calais. The Post sdgdficant is Training and LtveIo t Corporation and t}en BaebaGVt County. 1n tlw pact Bcantner did audit the ad m>'wer of , ecd U t'sudit Snclw3ed' scleol, watsr and" Sewer bat was 'mtt3$' a a significant audit m the last five years. Eeaultea's mut sigdfdcant Similar audit was the T of ti pow . Brooke and Carter haS bar s ngor's au if for the last 7 years. wk.'s mut sigoifd t in the last five yeazs was the Cfty of lc lston including scM , Sexes sows water — (1986-1989); City of Auburn (S Cluiiog scleol and airport) — (1987-1991); City of wgusta (including S 1, civic center, central garage and landfill) — (1991). in Tera of audit engagmenL over Ue last five years w has aud£ted a city large Uwe Bsngorae well as several meller. o£ xi,.*ne., Ue range vmcluded S 001, ac er, watsr, aixlwrt, ard, civic center. Staffing: 74d8 section lookei to darn vire the sfaffiig levels, staff lours mN mix of stafffrg the fins estimated would be n to 1»rfcrm the city's audit. Resp ..a vera request d to �tify wltl:in the audit aR=oach section tha le el of staffing aM ental mmtvr of twss to t aseignai t each segrtst. For each firm the respective marbers are ?mrs, @As ani Brooks 4 (2, 11 1); loge[ 3 (1, 1, 1); Brantrer 4 (1, 2, 1); Beaulieu 5 (1, 3, 1); arcl Pte. 5 (2, 2, 1). In Tenn of hours for the audit the respective Mors are tners, CPne and �._ Brantner 600 hrs (110, 360, 130); Peeulfer 504 lours (138, 366, ce ); HI 600 (53, 335, 212); Brooks 800 total, lases 640 (did not �uY) - n...+: t xppro i T9LLe section lcoked W the fim to describe Mrs the audit would ke cronducti, the hours which would be a ttei to each segnent or activity and the mix of resources. This purpose is to alive the city to detmnnire the adequacy of the approach the firm is prcpasin.3. T resporcieM finis descritei it detail t}air audit approach. ne low bidder (Bremner) a the high bid (RK[II,) did the best wik is relatira activities and estimated Mors and staff mires to the approach tluy would tale. The break out of reported time by anent section, if repleted, follows: P audit/preLudnary field work Pod. 20.56 123 hrs Brantnier 26.7% BrantmS 160 his Field wrk/cmpiia:re testing 56.08 336 hrs 58.38 350 hrs Reporting to /Reiiws with city 23.58 141 has 15.0% 90 hrs 30 hra CPAs 62.08 Tbtls 190.08 600 bra 100.08 34.08 600 hrs 1[_LeiIIa_oClle Lypa:oi=statx-tlln6crngliLEtl-I:etY.Cert I4�I::aM'BvanLwS.-the--.- 6xaalmat_follwe: - - -- xK(Q. BrantmS m audit/pwelimfnury field work 29.5t 123 hrs 26.78 160 hrs Partner 4.08 5 hrs 18.88 30 hra CPAs 62.08 76 bra 56.28 90 hrs naft RAs 34.08 42 brs 25.08 40 hxs Shtotal crnpment 100.0% 123 hrs 100.0% 160 hrs Field wark/ompl a testing 56.08 336 hrs58.38 350 hes Partner 14.3% 50 h CPRS 49.08 166 his 60.08 210 hxs ncn�As 51.06 170 dxs 25.74 90 hes SubT tal cooponent 100.04 336 hes 100.04 350 }us Reporting to /Reviem with city 23.54 141 hes ]5.08 90 hes Pan 34.08 48 hes 33.38 30 hes ceAe 66.04 93 hes 6744 60 Its non -CPAs Subtotal c nt 100.04 141 M 100.04 90 hes Grand meat All ('rzpcnents Partner 8.88 53 hes 18.34 110 hes CPAs 55.84 335 hes 60.08 360 las non, PAs 35.44 212 brs 21.7% 1'40 hrs Gra 'Total 100.08 141 hrs 100.08 90 los Beaulieu s Co. indicated that the partners weld provide 138 hours or 27.44 of Ute work, and CPAs 366 hours or 72.64 of the work for a tot1 of 504 haute. Beaulieu indicated that their approach wind de by fund and d rwt indicate an estivate of loots or staff mixing for each segnent, cc p t or fund. Brool indicated that 800 booze w to spent on the audit of whdch 550 hours or 68.78 weld t spent on govmtrtmtal funds, and 31.38 slant on propriety � trust fi.Ma. 1M is no Snddcaticn of time by Staffing level. lager did not specify tie number of hexa by staffing level nor the total hours for the audit. Z R 's Appendix C, Bet+; t 6tiwt o£ mt ,the level of staff, and hours axe reported for each ctuporent and major arae of the n._...—Planted audit.- _This is the g y such detailed statement submitted by a respondent. .. __. ice. paoposes to sped significantly more time in the analysis of the audit, pxelmration of the tangs ent letter and xavfew of the audit with the city..Fln-[lier, the par pm will not be rnrn =ti g the audit, rat w their audit supervisor aM staff will. In terns of general approach, rhes is little differaire bet.uesn the respondents. Each reports rvasaable the same approach to pre -audit and planting, field work std zepmt pmsentti.on. The sfgwf=eoo difference Ito therespondent's Opportunity of the pxopasal and the pmsent tion, which is W Oppor unity to sell itself on paper. In terms of comyutex' usage lU4a., i#eulieu ani Brartner will rely on their mm audit software, and Btooks for entexpiise funds. Lege[ did not specify. Brantner did offer 200 hours of no cost accounting if ussi by Detester 31, 1992. !b oder responknt vede a similar offer nor incld a service rot requests] in the RFP. Basnd upon the Tt [Hirst Proposals, the cmmittse vital 5 RIQ4, and 1 Brooks as their first choice for auditor. TT factors which are delinarted above Were those taken into account, and each resent firm was pxoviisl the save opportunity to respond to the RFP. Follc. agreaent on the first choice for technical the price proposals wire cpsed, and although I is the highest price bid, the canu£ttea favi that the taludcal proposal supporucc the pricing and is .e cm000 :ng psDi, to the Fpnstre C ttee ani the city Caa oil. T9e reason for the raameMat ion centar upon the qualifications and axpsrience of FRfA. and ssrond their pzdmscy in the state for mWcipal auditing. First, Uoare is an ifffnrtant distinction bet.aen N size and complexity of angor finsrces when coapared to the m r=uid ng tams and cities. Toe City of Bangor is uNxrye in the diversity of services p idsd, and the use of enterprise funds to track financial activity. The city is rot lits any town or small city. Ire city also generates 575,000,000 in annual xemenues for all of its funis and crnpaent units. share are not meso similarly sizei municipalities in the state. Second, the city is caning out of a period of financial prcbiess and vaagaent concerns. Moodj's Investor's Service and the financial varlets affin si their faith that the city is able and �l to taken tie steps necessary to restore its financial vaxgins. Mxdy's raaffirms3 the Aa rating and specifically � the steps the city is tatting rather than steps the city should be taking. The financial markets ack lalged the city's efforts with a 5.24568 for 20 } r lends. The city sells its bolls to a national Harker, and the financial rackets L(e-encore-au't1-4IepsJLt-oet'ause-tte' repdrr" is'includes In the prclkftj eiy - —_- and final official stataismt,. 'Tfi y are looking first for a Bfg-R firm such an Past, Marwick or Frost and yang. Failing that, tbey axe looking for a W or recogndzal firm in the axes. Rte, is laiam m Muody's �'s Bervices which rates toe city ad to the financisi ascots Which lad money. If the audit Is presented by a firm which is not re.xpdzed by the bond huyer, de official statement mmy xe�anai verification by a Big -S fist' Which is an additional, cost of issuance. M apparent slur[ term savings could translate into inarsasai costs of issuance ani higher rates due to vadat wrectainty ss to Wcee opinion they are relying M. 2g 19ti d is expeiiexe with similaz facers of Bangor's financial stnwtvxe. b¢ortant cviq»nelhs of rho city's structure am aUCdtion, Saar feed, Bass Park sod t Airport. � has t e ivxe in auditing education, smicipal water aed sewer, airport and civic center. the orfs respondents have tha exprrence with education and water/sewer but no other respondent reported experience with an airport or civic center. The other entetprisa funds W ich them was no stag rolatel exp recce am parking, nursing and golf. The nursing facility is essentially audited by Boxy, num, y it and Paris win pmpnre the state rest reports. Parking ad golf are less worrisass than the airport and Bass Park. Fouth rs ids run sorebleress of proposed trued. and Inns of xork reported by t high and lower bidders (RKOL, and mentner) are the sane. The distribution of time hetieen staffing levels is different with HI relying n ore m its staff to perform the edit and the partners to review ad report to the city. Tde wedian bidder, Beaulieu estimated 504 haus which is rat}w_r unrealistic. I question whether the low bidder can do the wont with the staff and dmurs proposed green that their most significant similar audit rn the last five years was for a private nonprofit, Training and Development Corp, They spent 725 hers perionning that audit. and gnostim of staffing sed h proposed by the las bidder is undermined by Brooks and Carter estimating 000 beers for a jcb they have done for ] years, and which they already have the Understanding of the city's organization ami financial effectors. tom, spent appmxbretely 725 }wrzs at City of lawister, which is larger than B�. � does have experience with langur namicipals and t exefere the estimate of 600 inure for RROL is sees acceptable. Finally, as the city looks to ispmve its internal financial maagaoent and tufa lr dolma which sed identified which {ism wiU pmvide greater assistance to the city? After the amort of time the counciland Finance Coumittae have spent debating and reviewing the city's short ccMings, we nQGil to maintain dire t access to the financial varkets by cont .i.,g eo move £ozxurd in correcting the pueblems which exist. Tee use of 1IIt03. will contnme to some the corrective actiar forward. Ih9 shong is that t award of the PY 1992 City Audit be .�,--na3e-tn-wnyonr-%emteen: -Ouellette 'aed-lessard of ScutM1'ttirCl"aril"'for a -- — —ret to -exceed -price -of -$35:920. idle I -recognise that the acrd to high bidd O rues afoul of the generally accepted wieder that the law price rs the lest: price or i best deal, in fact the quality of the Proposals, aril the technical ability of the fish rs indicative of clue quality of tide product which the city will receive, ne city is a juncture where quality rn financial mmragamst will realize greater costs Banned gs for the city i the dif£erena in proposed prices. July 29, 1992 U: Finance ttes C: John [vatteraxo, Finance Disbar : Armzd Of Hid for mlttect Cost Atlxation Plan (ICRP) 19re AFP for tle ICAF was subudtted at the saw tixe as the AFP for auditing servfoes but as a seperate piaposal, aM xexe seven proposals Caiv91 are notes bel : Lager, Ade $ 5,936 Isobar& Hagley $ 5,000 to $'1,200 iron Beaulieu $ 5,583 to $ 8,500 AxOL $ 51000 to $10,000 Brenterr, mhitas' au $12,000 to $20,000 Schatz 6 Flet hex $22,400 Peat, 19rvdck $32.000. For those that sutmdtted ranges fn prices, the controlling factors would be the extent to which city staff eroes the leg work in tracung costs ai the nudeer of tmsactinns or otter rejective basis far allocating cats. ane city is Oct In a position to provide staff for U Pmccias, there£ore, the high end of the range was usal to evaluate the proposals. 1b the mR t passible, I would expect to use x fare for certain activitis but would question the extant ai reliebiI ity of the work effort unless closely supsrvised. sere cvpletion dates range fren August 31, 1992 (Hagley) to � 31, 1992 (AFB,), telying on the audited M2 figures. Using the Ml audited figures � will complete b3 O'toler 31, 1992. the atot exparlesre3 is Peat, Mac ick but their cost of $32,000 plus reltarce on city staff is rot acreptable. While their Px xould be excellent, and tl y preps the lent 1C (1982), the cost is not justified by the product or its intended use. At the low end, lager, Ada has not prep . an Icap, we audited ore according to their suhri sion. eartam Bagley tad a generally pec ptesentation although she has pxepared an IW. Sctatz 5 Pletcherhas. rot__ _PreParei.an_LGP_althOu h -they -have audiial and is also including a $21000 coote £or att2a4 to Brmis 6 carter LFZ.nLd4. ' t cost fa not necemsary. All three of the reiaUdmg respn is have prepared and m ted I . The thataS f= also bid box thea lit, ai it wind he helpful to keep the ICRP firm and the audit firm as t sacs, if possible. Both Ban:liai and LMB. fifcated they tl q have tad arrtat with and wind present the ICAF to the DVof health and Manan Sezvirres, (p ) which zvust accept the proposal. Bra rt did not o'nnent of this point. In revteaing their suhNasion �toe's cost fs ew,essive for similar experfenre ani PronLute. - Finally, in narro drq the filar to maulien ai FRB„ Welch are both out Of ]brtlad, cost, nark Plan and future updates are a consideration. The work plans are similar as is the experience. Given that the reromnoiation for the city audit is to P , and that the rW asst be annually updated, the recm:reiation for the ICAF eerd is to f at a not to aa:eed price of $10,000. Ilk COMPARISON OF AUDXT PROPOSALS BHANTPAR, THIBODEAO d ASSO. (AT") AMON, KERSTEET, OUELLEPTE 6 LESSARD (RKOL) August 3, 1992 By G. Thibodeeu Peas Regular audit $20,000 $35,920 Fees as a percent of standard Costs 588 889 Additional accounting ting services (prior year costto City $120,144) First 200 hours at m cast (first year) Yes No Quoted hourly rates as percent of standard rates 75e 100% P,resm ec BTM RKOL governmental Governmental audit hours in prior year 6,000 hrs. N/A Current number governmental clients 40 30 Current largest governmental audit listed 725 bra. 650 hrs. ad Staf Hours g Hours 8 Management Partner 110 53 Manager 180 85 Total management 290 -A$9 ]j¢ 238 Seniors and assistants Seniors led 250 Assistants 112 Total seniors and assistants 21Q 528 462 -19 Grant total 600 1008 600 1008 Peas Regular audit $20,000 $35,920 Fees as a percent of standard Costs 588 889 Additional accounting ting services (prior year costto City $120,144) First 200 hours at m cast (first year) Yes No Quoted hourly rates as percent of standard rates 75e 100% P,resm ec COMPARISON OF AUDIT PROPOSALS BRANTNER, THIBODEAU 6 ASSO. (BT&A) RITNYON, KBESTEEN, OUELLETTE A LESSARD (MOL) August 3, 1992 Identification of An[lefna[ad paten[ial Ai On At the initial and subsequent conferences for audit proposers we were informed that the City had i excess of 200 audit adjustments and requiredr$100,000 in c owting services by the auditor Inthe prior year. It is our understanding that the basic conditions that contributed to these problems are e being corrected and that every effort is being made toinsure that Me City's accounts ebeing reconciled and will accurately reflect the City's financial position. In addition to the above potential problems, the prior year's management letter reported various reportable conditions and material weaknesses. Mile some of the items cited da not appear to be significant,of potential concern woulinclude: The timeliness pf. cash reconciliations. Accounts receivable reconciliations. Accounting for Capital projects. Loss Of indirect coat Inadequate monitoring of leases of the airport. By O. Thibodeau RML Basedon ar review of prior financial statements and information gained at the bidders conferences, see no potential audit problems of significance, COMPARISON OF AUDIT PROPOSALS BRANTNER, TNIBODEAU & ASSO. (BTSA) RUNYON, KERSTEEN, OUELLEFTE & LESSARD (RROL) August 3, 1992 By G. Thibodaux Indirect Cost Study @TfrA HKOL Exoerien have prepared and negotiated with Assisted a client who prepared an federal authorities several indirect coat proposal. indirect cost proposals. Fee t 758 of standard rates with no travel and lodging expense. d xonbindine Coat $12,000 to $20,000 based on our experience (Peat Marwick who performed City's last cast study estimated a cost in excess of $30,000). 1008 of standard rates plus out of pocket expenses. $5,000 to $10,000 with 80e of hours performed by individual not certified until 1991. City of Bangor Reference Check -- August 4, 1992 Branner, Thibodeau 6 Associates Summary of references checks made August 4, 1992 regarding audit proposals 1. Training and Development Corporation William Meier, Director of Finance 469-6385 Private nonprofit corporation, contracts with state and federal governments for employment and training programs and has certain small private contracts Annual revenues approximately $15,000,000; during time that respondent has audited revenues have fluctuated between $13,000,000 and $19,000,000. Respondent has performed audit since 1982. Contract has been bid twice for one year contract with 4 additional one year renewals. FY1992 is the end of the second contract period and company will go to bid again. All accounting is done in-house by company and respondent performs a strict audit under OMB A-133 plus HAAT, schedules (state financial reports). Working relationship with the respondent is very, good, there have been no problems with timeliness of reports or disputed fees. If there Were additional fees, they were agreed to before hand, and respondent has written off a portion of fees. There are and have been no unresolved issues with the respondent. The company's cognizant agency, Dept. of Labor has reviewed the audit report and comments are consistently favorable. Questions which allow for choices to be made by the company have been dealt with extraordinarily cooperatively by the respondent, who maintains professional standards and will not deviate from those standards if the choices are limited. Respondent demonstrates a high level of integrity. -- -ICAP-(indiiect cost allocation plan) is done In-house and post -submission, by respondent. Involvement of partner was high several years ago, but not now. Partner participates at the outset and at the submission of the report. 2. Penobscot County Vanessa Holmes, Deputy Treasurer, 942-0405 General purpose county government with December 31 year and, plus unorganized territories with June 30 year and. Annual budget is approximately $6,700,000 for county Bud $600,000 for unorganized territories. No federal grant funds, and a state victim grant. Respondent has performed the audit for 1990 and 1991, prior auditor was Foster, Carpenter and Black. This is a three year audit contract, and will be rebid for the period ending December 31, 1993. There is no difference in the quantity of work between the respondent and the prior auditors, although they do test and emphasis different areas. Also, there is a change in areas of emphasis from year to year. Reference expects that following 12/31/92 audit each area of government finance will have been emphasised. County gathers necessary data, supporting information and books and respondent prepares schedules and reports. During first year engagement partner attended all planning meetings. Respondent's staff conducts onosite work. Financial statements are circulated to county commissioners for review and if there are questions meeting with engagement partner would be scheduled. There has not been a meeting scheduled. Comments in the management letter change from year to year demonstrating a change in the audit emphasis. There is alot of up front work to gather the needed information. Respondent is very good to work with. 3. City of Old Town Constance Murray, Finance Director 827-3961 General purpose goverment with sewer fund carried as a special revenue fund rather than an enterprise fund and municipal school department. Annual revenues are $14,700,000. Respondent performed the audit for 12 years with annual renewals, during that time government did not go to bid. Government went to bid at after the 6/30/91 audit and awarded to another firm. There was no dissatisfaction with audit performed by respondent. There were no problems with timing of report submission (goverment would be audit ready third week of July); no extra billings nor disputes of any two. Government is doing more work for the current auditor than for respondent. Engagement partner was not very involved in field work, 2 person team for field work. Engagement partner involved post audit and production of statements and report. Reference could not comment on financial note 4, page 20 second sentence. This note refers to school employee retirement costs, and municipal side stays away from school issues. Respondent would meet with Council on request, and recalls only one meeting in six years. 4. City of Calais Byron Burke, City Manager 454-2521 General purpose municipal government with water and sewer enterprise funds, and municipal school department. annual revenues are approximately $4,000,000. This is the third year (6/30/92) of a five year contract. Prior auditor had contract for 10 years. Respondent is doing more of their accounting than the prior auditor, more transactions testing and is more thorough. There have been no disputes regarding timing of reports or fees. 5. Town of Millinocket William Ayoub, Town Manager ]23-]000 (august 5, 1992) General purpose goverment with a sewer fund. Includes school department. Annual revenues are approximately $10,000,000. Town's practice has been to go out to bid annually, and respondent has performed the audit for 3 of the last 5 years. Government would pefer to maintain respondent as permanent auditor rather than annual solicit. Respondent is "nothing but the best", "excellent", extramely good-. Town Manager is also the Treasurer, but town bookkeeper does year and work and preparation of schedules. Respondent does an auidt of the books rather than provides accounting services. Tawn does hire outside accounting services when needed. No disputes regarding timeliness ofreport, or fees.___ Government has also used Brooks and Carter, extremely good, and Lager, Ade when they were getting into municipal audit. There were problems experienced with Lager, Ade. Respondent is "extremely professional" and highly recommended City of Bangor Reference Check -- August 4, 1992 Runyon, xersteen, Ouellette & Lessard Summary of references checks made August 4, 1992 regarding audit proposals 1. City of Lewiston Richard Metivier, Finance Director 784-2951 General purpose government with water and sewer enterprise funds. Parking garage is part of the general fund. There is also a municipal school department. Annual revenues are approximately $70,000,000. Respondent was auditor for approximately 5 1/2 year, they became the auditor when the city change fiscal years. Following FY 1989 government bid services and current auditor was the low bidder. City Charter requires periodic audit bids. There was no dissatisfaction with the work of the respondent. There were no disputes regarding the timeliness of receiving reports, nor fee disputes. If there were delays it was due to city not being ready when scheduled. Respondent performed a number of no costs services for the city Goverment does not have an ICRP. 2. City of Auburn William Lundrigan, Finance Director 786-2421 General purpose goverment which had an enterprise fund (waste to energy plant) and is the process of beginning another (ice skating rink). Also a municipal school department. The Auburn -Lewiston Airport is a stand alone unit. Annual revenues are approximately $52,000,000; and the airport is less than $1,000,000. Respondent has audited since 1987. Government went to bid last year, rejected the low bid and renewed contract with respondent. Good audit firm, and are very comfortable to work with. Reference was especially pleased with respondent's work on closing out the waste to energy enterprise fund. All investment coats were captured and phased out. Government is currently constructing an ice rink which will be established as an enterprise fund. Reference would like to shift audit emphasis to transaction flow analysis (TVA) and to move into performance auditing. Respondent is working with goverment. No problems with timeliness of reports of scheduling. Any problems have been internal to the government, including council and manager not reacting to issues raised by the respondent. There have been no disputed fees. Respondent has written off fees is excess of contract and noted amounts on invoices. Goverment has compensated respondent for certain of those amounts at govermnent's instigation and not respondent's request. Government does not have an ICRP 3. City of Augusta Terrance St. Peter 626-2300 not available 4. Town of Scarborough Carl L. Betterly, Town Manager 883-4301 at Tax Assessor School Ruth Porter, Finance Director 883-4301 on vacation 5. City of Braver Jane Warren, Finance Director 989-7660 General purpose goverment with sewer enterprise fund and tax increment finance district (TIF). Also, municipal school department. Annual revenues are approximately $15,000,000. Respondent has been auditor for three years (FY90, 91 and 92). Goverment will go to bid next year FY93. Prior auditor was Stammer, Thibodeau 6 Associates. BT&A was the low bid, respondent was mid-range, Council rejected low bid and awarded to respondent. Finance Director objected to change in audit firms and went "kicking and screaming". Two firma have different styles, procedures and expectations, with respondent demanding more work than the goverment had been doing. Alot of work that the prior auditor was doing is now being done by the government. Although firms are different reference was happy with both, although BT&A had a tendency to take easy way. Problem with timeliness of report for last two years is due to goverment's aFP not divulging the existence of TIP, and government not having work prepared in a timely manner. Fee dispute was $1,500 for audit of TIF. Government restructured balance sheet per respondent style which required slot of adjusting journal entries. BT&A did alot more work, easy accessible and government would look to them for alternate opinion If differed with respondent. Goverment has not sought an alternate opinion. No billing disputes with BTfiA, and since their engagement was annually renewed, there was no time deadline to hold them to. Respondents being but of town has presented no problem to goverment. Working with respondent has bass a good experience, goverment will go to bid again next year and will send to respondent and BMSA.