Audit Report 0-23
Description
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416 AUDIT REPORT Issue Date: August 21, 2000 Number: 0-23 To: Robert J. Moffitt Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees From: Robert G. Seabrooks Assistant Inspector General for Auditing Subject: Audit of American Reliable Insurance Company Attached is a copy of the audit report on American Reliable Insurance Company (American Reliable) issued by Cotton & Company, LLP. The report discusses the following problems: (1) required underwriting documentation was not maintained, (2) unallowable losses and expenses were claimed, (3) expenses were not allocable to the bond, (4) an expense was not supported by a cancelled check, (5) SBA’s guarantee percentage was not adjusted when the final contract exceeded the statutory limit, and (6) all sources of recovery were not pursued. You may release this report to the duly authorized representative of American Reliable. The findings included in this report are based on the auditors’ conclusions. The findings and recommendations are subject to review, management decision, and corrective action by your office in accordance with existing Agency procedures for audit follow-up and resolution. Please provide us your proposed management decision for each recommendation on the attached forms 1824, Recommended Action Sheet, within 80 days. If you disagree with the recommendations, please provide ...
Informations
| Publié par | Tanid |
| Nombre de lectures | 16 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416 AUDIT REPORT Issue Date: August 21, 2000 Number: 0-23
To:Robert J. Moffitt Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees
From: G. Seabrooks Robert Assistant Inspector General for Auditing Subject: of American Reliable Insurance Company Audit Attached is a copy of the audit report on American Reliable Insurance Company (American Reliable) issued by Cotton & Company, LLP. The report discusses the following problems: (1) required underwriting documentation was not maintained, (2) unallowable losses and expenses were claimed, (3) expenses were not allocable to the bond, (4) an expense was not supported by a cancelled check, (5) SBA’s guarantee percentage was not adjusted when the final contract exceeded the statutory limit, and (6) all sources of recovery were not pursued. You may release this report to the duly authorized representative of American Reliable. The findings included in this report are based on the auditors’ conclusions. The findings and recommendations are subject to review, management decision, and corrective action by your office in accordance with existing Agency procedures for audit follow-up and resolution. Please provide us your proposed management decision for each recommendation on the attached forms 1824, Recommended Action Sheet, within 80 days. If you disagree with the recommendations, please provide your reasons in writing. This report may contain proprietary information subject to the provisions of 18 USC 1905. Therefore, you should not release this report to the public or another agency without permission of the Office of Inspector General. Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Robert Hultberg, Business Development Programs Group at (202)205-7204. Attachments
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF AMERICAN BANKERS/AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Performed by: Cotton & Company LLP Certified Public Accountants 333 North Fairfax Street, Suite 401 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
$1.25 million for contracts with the same obligee and bond issue dates within several months. We then reviewed project descriptions to determine if the bonds were for a single project divided into more than one contract. We also determined if bonds were issued to sampled contractors that had defaulted on bonds prior to bond execution dates. We conducted fieldwork in October and November 1998 at American Reliable’s offices in Scottsdale, Arizona. The audit was conducted in accordance withGovernment Auditing Standards,1994 revision, except as described below. FOLLOW-UP ON PRIOR AUDITS The scope of our audit did not include following up on findings and recommendations from previous audit reports. AUDIT RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS American Reliable did not comply with SBA’s policies and procedures for underwriting bonds. Specifically, American Reliable did not maintain all required underwriting documents. American Reliable also claimed unallowable losses and expenses, including those not covered by the bonded contract, expenses not allocable to the bond, and an expense not supported by a canceled check. In addition, American Reliable did not adjust the SBA guarantee percentage when final contract exceeded the $1.25 million statutory limit, or pursue all sources of recovery. As a result, we questioned $887,954. We conducted an exit conference with American Reliable personnel on November 13, 1998, to discuss preliminary findings and recommendations. American Reliable personnel stated that they would attempt to locate additional documentation and canceled checks to support some of the findings noted. Our findings and recommendations are discussed in detail below. Incomplete Underwriting Documentation Provided American Reliable did not obtain complete underwriting documents for all sample bonds tested. Specifically, American Reliable did not maintain completed SBA forms in its files that are required when underwriting SBA bonds for seven sample bonds. In addition, for one bond, American Reliable did not provide the underwriting file (Sample No. 5). Title 13,Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) 115.40 (1994, 1995), and Title 13, CFR 115.21 (1996), require retention of all aforementioned records. Accordingly, American Reliable was not in compliance with record retention requirements. Recommendation:We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, advise American Reliable to comply with record retention requirements for all remaining SBA bonds in the future. American Reliable Response:American Reliable stated that it noted the finding and recommendation for future underwriting compliance. Cotton & Company Response:None. [FOIA EX. 4]
2
American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA Ex.4] the contract amount. A consultant’s report indicated that the contract was about 85 percent complete when [EX. 4] defaulted. American Reliable paid [Ex. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. We questioned SBA’s 80-percent guaranteed portion of [FOIA EX. 4] for the reasons discussed below. After [EX. 4] defaulted on the contract, American Reliable entered into a takeover agreement on [EX. 4] under the terms of its performance bond. The takeover agreement assigned a completion contractor to complete the original bonded contract plus additional work totaling [EX. 4]. This additional work was not incorporated into the bonded contract by approved change orders. Instead, it was handled by a separate agreement between the obligee and the principal [EX. 4] and a promissory note [EX. 4] to pay [EX. 4] monthly, until the full sum of the agreement was paid. Under this arrangement, [EX. 4] essentially financed the additional work; neither American Reliable nor SBA approved the separate agreement and promissory note. By including the additional work in the takeover agreement, American Reliable implicitly agreed to a material alteration in the bond, which was not approved by SBA. Title 13, CFR 115.13, Defenses of SBA, states that SBA is to be relieved of all liability under the surety bond guarantee if the surety agrees to or concedes to any material alteration in the terms, conditions, or provisions of the bonds without SBA’s prior written approval. A material alteration increases the bond liability by 25 percent or $50,000, whichever is less. Additionally, CFR 115.16(c) (1996) states that loss under a performance bond is, at the surety’s option, the sum necessary to meet the cost of fulfilling the terms of a bonded contract or the penal sum of the bond. CFR 115.16 (e)(1) states that losses are amounts actually paid by the surety, which are specifically allocable to the investigation, adjustment, negotiation, compromise, settlement of, or resistance to a claim for loss resulting from breach of the terms of the bonded contract, if these amounts are itemized, documented, and attributable solely to the loss under the guaranteed bond. We questioned SBA’s guaranteed portion of all claims under the bond, or [EX. 4]. As of September 30, 1998, American Reliable was still seeking recovery from the obligee for remaining contract funds and all funds covering additional work. Recommendation: We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, advise American Reliable to reimburse [EX. 4] of questioned costs to SBA. American Reliable Response:American Reliable provided the following in response to the issues stated above: •The takeover agreement for the original contract and additional work represented only claims under the performance bond, and not the payment bond. Therefore, only claims under the performance bond should be questioned. American Reliable later stated, however, that SBA should guarantee the total loss under the Code for Minimization of Loss. •American Reliable included the additional work in the takeover agreement to minimize the risk of loss. It was more cost effective to include the additional unbonded work as an enhancement to the takeover contractor and the obligee to obtain a more competitive
3
price from the takeover contractor. The inclusion of additional items beyond the strict interpretation of the scope of the original bonded contract was beneficial in negotiations with the obligee. •American Reliable stated that, because of the sequence of remaining work, the bonded work could not have been completed without prior or concurrent completion of the unbonded work. Therefore, it would not have been cost effective to complete obligations under the bond without completing the unbonded work. Additional costs incurred in completing the unbonded work more than offset the cost of damages that would have accrued if the bonded work was not completed in a timely manner. The above actions were taken to minimize the risk of loss. Cotton & Company Response:We respond to each issue as follows: •American Reliable did not have SBA prior approval to include the additional work in the takeover agreement. Therefore, American Reliable implicitly agreed to a material alteration to the bond, and total liability is denied. The argument of payment versus performance bond coverage is irrelevant. We continue to recommend recovery of questioned costs of [EX. 4]. •The surety’s obligation to minimize risk clearly required the surety to obtain SBA approval prior to signing the takeover agreement. Title 13, CFR 115.13, states that SBA is relieved of all liability under the surety bond guarantee, if the surety agrees to any material alteration in the terms, conditions, or provisions of the bond without SBA’s prior written approval. •The unbonded work was the sole responsibility of agreements between the principal and the obligee. Accordingly, it was the obligee’s responsibility to complete the unbonded work. The issues concerning damages for time delays or the cost effectiveness of combining the obligations are irrelevant. [FOIA Ex. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4] the contract amount. The obligee declared [FOIA EX. 4] in default of its contract on [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. a. In its response to the draft report, American Reliable provided a canceled check to support a [FOIA EX. 4] payment to [FOIA EX. 4], a claimant under the bond. Accordingly, we deleted the finding and recommendation. b. American Reliable improperly included on its Form 994H a [FOIA EX. 4] loan to [FOIA EX. 4] and a [Ex. 4] payment to a construction consultant, which were both allocable to a different bond [FOIA EX. 4]. The loan was apparently made to avoid an imminent breach of the other contract, although American Reliable classified it as a performance bond loss on its Form 994H. American Reliable received a [FOIA EX. 4] recovery, which offset the loan, on [FOIA EX. 4], and also included this on the Form 994H for the sample bond.
4
Title 13, CFR 115.11, Definitions, states that loss adjustment expense must be specifically allocable to the investigation, adjustment, negotiation, compromise, or settlement of a given claim for loss. We did not question costs related to this misallocation, because both bonds were SBA guaranteed and in default status. American Reliable Response:American Reliable responded as follows to the two findings noted above: a. American Reliable provided a copy of the canceled check to support the questioned claims of [FOIA EX. 4]. b. American Reliable did not respond to the finding regarding misallocation of payments to another bond. Cotton & Company Response:We respond to each issue as follows: a. As stated above, this finding was resolved. Accordingly, we deleted the finding from our final report. b. None. [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds [FOIA EX. 4], on [FOIA EX. 4] for [FOIA EX. 4], the contract amount. The obligee issued [FOIA EX. 4] a default notification on [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. In its response to the draft report, American Reliable provided canceled checks to support 8 payments under the bonds totaling[FOIA EX. 4]. Accordingly, we deleted the finding and recommendation. American Reliable Response:American Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support questioned claims of[FOIA EX. 4]. Cotton & Company Response: we deleted Accordingly,As stated above, this finding was resolved. the finding from our final report. [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4], on [FOIA EX. 4], [FOIA EX. 4], the contract amount. The obligee issued a notice of termination to [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. In its response to the draft report, American Reliable provided canceled checks to support 15 payments under the bonds totaling [FOIA EX. 4]. Accordingly, we deleted the finding and recommendation. American Reliable Response: Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support American questioned claims of [FOIA EX. 4]. Cotton & Company Response: we deleted Accordingly,As stated above, this finding was resolved. the finding from our final report. [FOIA EX. 4]
5
American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4] on [FOIA EX. 4], the contract amount. A letter from the obligee stated that approximately 12 percent of required work had been completed through [FOIA EX. 4]; the contractor failed to show up at the project site a short time later. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (there were no recoveries) under these bonds. In its response to the draft report, American Reliable provided canceled checks to support 28 payments under the bonds totaling [FOIA EX. 4]. Accordingly, we deleted the finding and recommendation. American Reliable Response:American Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support questioned claims of[FOIA EX. 4]. Cotton & Company Response: Accordingly, we deleted As stated above, this finding was resolved. the finding from our final report. [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4] for [FOIA EX. 4] the contract amount. The obligee declared [FOIA EX. 4] in default of its contract on [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. We questioned SBA’s 90-percent guaranteed portion of [FOIA EX. 4], for the reason discussed below. American Reliable did not provide a canceled check to support one payment under the bonds totaling [FOIA EX. 4]. A check was issued on [FOIA EX. 4], but has not yet been cashed. Title 13, CFR 115.11, Definitions, defines loss adjustment expense as amounts actually paid. American Reliable provided canceled checks for 10 payments under the bond in its response to the draft report. The finding and recommendation were revised accordingly. Recommendations: We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, advise American Reliable to reimburse [FOIA EX. 4] of questioned costs to SBA. American Reliable Response:American Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support 10 of the 11 items questioned. American Reliable did issue the one remaining check, but it was never cashed by the payee and is still outstanding. Cotton & Company Response:American Reliable did provide conclusive evidence that questioned claims were actually paid for 10 of the 11 items questioned. The remaining check for[FOIA EX. 4] is still considered unresolved, and the finding will remain for this item. [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4], on [FOIA EX. 4], respectively. The obligee declared [FOIA EX. 4] in default of its contract on [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. We questioned [FOIA EX. 4] and American Reliable’s compliance with SBA regulations for the reasons discussed below. a. American Reliable paid claims under a takeover agreement that incorporated [FOIA EX. 4] of approved change orders into the original [FOIA EX. 4] contract. The change orders were issued between [FOIA EX. 4], prior to the default date. Thus, the final contract amount of [FOIA EX. 4] exceeded the $1,250,000 statutory contract limit. Title 13, CFR 115.31(d), Contract Increases to 6
b.
Over $1,250,000, states that, if the contract increases above the $1,250,000 statutory limit after bond execution, SBA’s share of the loss should be limited as follows: $1,250,000 ÷ [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable did not limit its guarantee percentage to 86.2 percent of losses and expenses paid. Accordingly, its claims for reimbursement included [FOIA EX. 4] of unallowable amounts calculated as follows:
[FOIA EX. 4] × 90% $[FOIA EX. 4] [FOIA EX. 4] × 86.2% [FOIA EX. 4] $ [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable provided canceled checks to support 7 payments under the bonds totaling [FOIA EX. 4] with its response to the draft report. Accordingly, we deleted this finding and recommendation. Recommendation: We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, advise American Reliable to reimburse [FOIA EX. 4] of questioned costs to SBA. American Reliable Response:American Reliable responded to these two findings as follows: a. American Reliable disagreed with the recommendations in the audit report based on its interpretation that the payment bond did not exceed SBA statutory limits. Based on its interpretation, applicable bond losses under the payment and performance bonds would result in[FOIA EX. 4]reimbursable to SBA from the surety. b. American Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support questioned claims of [FOIA EX. 4]. Cotton & Company Response:We respond to each issue as follows: a. American Reliable agreed in principal that contract increases are subject to statutory limits requiring an adjustment of SBA’s share of the loss, but continued to assert that payment and performance bonds may be separated to calculate applicable statutory limits. Title 13, CFR 115.31(d), states that, if a contract increases above the $1,250,000 statutory limit after bond execution, SBA’s share of the loss shall be limited by the applicable formula. The finding remains, and we continue to recommend recovery of questioned costs of [FOIA EX. 4].
7
b. As stated above, this finding was resolved. Accordingly, we deleted the finding from our final report. [FOIA EX. 4] American Reliable issued performance and payment bonds to [FOIA EX. 4] the contract amount. The obligee issued a notice of termination to [FOIA EX. 4]. American Reliable paid [FOIA EX. 4] of losses and expenses (net of recoveries) under these bonds. In its response to the draft report, American Reliable provided canceled checks to support 7 payments under the bonds totaling [FOIA EX. 4]. Accordingly, we deleted the finding and recommendation. American Reliable Response:American Reliable provided copies of canceled checks to support questioned claims of [FOIA EX. 4]. Cotton & Company Response: we deletedAs stated above, this finding was resolved. Accordingly, the finding from our final report. OTHER MATTERS NOTED We noted the following matters regarding bonds that were not in our sample, which we believe should be reviewed further by either SBA’s OIG or OSG. [FOIA EX. 4] During our review of the claim file for[FOIA EX. 4]we noted correspondence relating to another bond[FOIA EX. 4]stating that it was issued by an agent who did not have valid powers of attorney in[FOIA EX. 4] and performance bonds were issued for Payment, when the bond was executed.[FOIA EX. 4]each, the contract amount. We reviewed a[FOIA EX. 4], letter from American Reliable to its underwriters questioning the bond validity, and stating that American Reliable expected to be held harmless for any losses or costs associated with a claim on these bonds. Title 13, CFR 115.10, Definitions, states that execution is defined as signing by a representative or agent with the authority and power to bind the surety. Accordingly, we concluded that this bond is ineligible for SBA’s guarantee. Recommendation: We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, notify American Reliable that it considers this bond ineligible for SBA’s guarantee and that it will deny liability on any claims submitted by American Reliable. American Reliable Response:American Reliable did not comment on this audit finding. Cotton & Company Response:The audit finding will remain as stated. [FOIA EX. 4] Before beginning our audit, OSG asked us to review this bond to determine the disposition of a [FOIA EX. 4]certificate of deposit that had been taken as collateral when the bond was executed. We reviewed the underwriting and claim files and held discussions with American Reliable representatives. SBA Form 994B, Surety Bond Guarantee Underwriting Review, states that the surety required additional security in the form of a[FOIA EX. 4] Reliable was not aware of Americancertificate of deposit. the collateral when it processed claims under the bond and, therefore, did not pursue its right to liquidate the 8
collateral as part of its recovery efforts. It stated in correspondence to SBA that the agent had stated that the collateral was held on another bond and was released when the project was completed; American Reliable could provide no evidence to support the agent’s statement. In a[FOIA EX. 4], letter to SBA, American Reliable requested that SBA process claims under[FOIA EX. 4], less the[FOIA EX. 4]representing the collateral. The collateral was not netted against claims submitted on the SBA Form 994H. During our exit discussions, an American Reliable representative stated that the company no longer had a relationship with the underwriters of this bond and were unable to obtain documentation to support the existence of the collateral. The representative agreed that American Reliable might have to absorb the loss related to this collateral. Recommendation: We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, notify American Reliable to reimburse SBA[FOIA EX. 4], which is its guaranteed portion of the collateral ([FOIA EX. 4]future claims submitted for reimbursement under× 80%) from present and this bond. American Reliable should reimburse SBA[FOIA EX. 4]for claims paid by SBA under [FOIA EX. 4] addition, SBA will offset future claim reimbursements under this bond by. In[FOIA EX. 4], the remaining amount of SBA’s guaranteed portion of the collateral. American Reliable Response:American Reliable stated that it will reimburse SBA [FOIA EX. 4] and offset the remaining [FOIA EX. 4] of claims incurred on this bond. Cotton & Company:None. MANAGEMENT CONTROLS The scope of our audit did not include assessing management controls, and thus we did not identify or test such controls. SBA MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE The Associate Administrator, Office of Surety Guarantees, stated he had reviewed the draft audit report. He noted that the initial report had 11 findings of which five have been resolved and no recommendations were made. He agrees with the remaining auditor’s recommendations.
9
© 2010-2024 YouScribe
