REPORT DIGEST
ILLINOIS STUDENT ASSISTANCE COMMISSION – ILLINOIS PREPAID TUITION PROGRAM
FINANCIAL AUDIT
For the Year Ended: June 30, 2010
Summary of Findings:
Total this audit: 1
Total last audit: 0
Repeated from last audit: 0
Release Date: April 7, 2011
State of Illinois, Office of the Auditor General
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, AUDITOR GENERAL
To obtain a copy of the Report contact:
Office of the Auditor General, Iles Park Plaza, 740 E. Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 782-6046 or TTY (888) 261-2887
This Report Digest and Full Report are also available on the worldwide web at www.auditor.illinois.gov
____________________________
INTRODUCTION
This report covers our financial audit of the Illinois
Student Assistance Commission (Commission) – Illinois Prepaid Tuition Program
(Program) as of June 30, 2010 and for the year then ended. The financial statement opinion includes a
paragraph emphasizing that the Program has a deficit of $338 million as of June
30, 2010.
SYNOPSIS
• The Program did not comply with the competitive
procurement requirements of the Illinois Procurement Code and did not follow
sound business practices in its selection of a vendor to provide due diligence
services. Further, the Commission lacked
documentation showing the vendor performed the same services specified in the
contract.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROCUREMENT LAW AND SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICES NOT FOLLOWED
The Illinois Prepaid Tuition Program of the Illinois Student
Assistance Commission (Commission) did not comply with the competitive
procurement requirements of the Illinois Procurement Code and did not follow
sound business practices in its selection of a vendor to provide investment due
diligence services. Further, the
services performed by the vendor did not match the services specified in the
contract.
The Commission awarded a contract for investment due
diligence services without following established procurement law,
administrative rules or sound business practices. We noted the following:
1. The Request for Proposal (RFP) issued to procure the
Services was not specific to investment due diligence services, but rather was
for financial advisory services pertaining to issuing or restructuring debt;
2. Only one of ten “prequalified vendors” provided pricing
for the investment due diligence services and there was no effort to obtain
quotes from any of the other successful respondents when it was determined that
investment due diligence services were needed;
3. The performance of the work commenced prior to obtaining
a signed contract;
4. The Commission could not provide documentation showing
the vendor’s “due diligence” services were provided as required by the
contract;
5. The fee arrangements with the selected vendor did not
ensure objectivity in the performance of the work which was the subject of the
contract; and
6. Management focused on only one private equity investment
alternative.
Competitive Price Procurement Circumvented in the RFP
Process (Exceptions #1 and #2)
On January 4, 2008, the Commission (through Central
Management Services) issued an RFP. The
auditors concluded the RFP was primarily issued to assist the Commission with
services pertaining to the issuance/ restructuring of debt.
The auditors reviewed the proposal provided by the vendor
awarded investment due diligence services under this RFP. The vendor did not present qualifications in
the proposal pertaining to investment advisory services or investment due
diligence services. The price proposal,
however, did contain the following additional unsolicited fee quote that was not
included in the RFP fee proposal form:
“Other Services:
Financial Advisor, investment banking and analysis services related to
investment of 529 prepaid tuition plan assets in illiquid assets and/or private
placement in new asset categories charges: 1.25 to 2% of invested assets.”
Based on the RFP issued, there was no clear basis for
awarding a contract for investment due diligence services in a fair and
competitive manner that allowed all interested parties the opportunity to
participate in the procurement opportunity.
There is no evidence that any of the 9 other respondents were asked to
provide pricing for due diligence services after the proposals were received
and scored.
According to Commission management, the Commission believed
that the RFP process complied with the Illinois Procurement Code and permitted
selection of a vendor from the qualified list of financial advisors to perform
the services requested.
Contract Not Reduced to Writing and Performance of Contract
Requirements not Adequately Documented (Exceptions #3 and #4)
The Vendor’s investment due diligence services were limited
to one recommended transaction – a private equity investment in a specific
bank. According to Commission
management, the Vendor began performing its due diligence work on the viability
of the recommended private equity investment in the Bank around March
2008. This was prior to the Board
approving changes to the investment policy on June 27, 2008 that would allow for
direct private equity investments. The
Vendor issued its final Offering Analysis report on September 19, 2008. The investment in the Bank was actually made
on September 30, 2008. The terms of the
contract with the vendor provided for services to be performed between November
24, 2008 and March 31, 2009. The
contract was not signed until November 24, 2008. Thus all the work required by the contract
was completed and the private equity investment was purchased prior to the date
and terms of the contract beginning November 24, 2008.
The Commission lacked documentation showing that the vendor
performed the same services as specified by the contract. The contract called for the vendor to
“Conduct thorough due diligence of the proposed investment”. Due diligence generally requires the
independent verification of material facts, and in this case, Bank management
representations. In the Offering
Analysis, provided as the final work product of the Vendor, it states “All
information concerning the Bank was provided by (Bank) management. All information received has been accepted by
(the Vendor) to be accurate with no further investigation”. The auditors requested but were not provided
any evidence that the Vendor independently verified management’s
representations.
According to Commission management, the contract was not
executed prior to the commencement of work because of unclear communication and
an incorrect assumption that contracts were entered into with all vendors
prequalified to provide financial advisory services. Commission management stated the vendor, in
conjunction with the Commission’s outside attorneys, reviewed financial records
and reports, conducted site visits and interviews, reviewed reports of federal
regulators and other corporate records
and documents prior to preparing their report.
Vendor Fee Arrangement Not Objective and Alternative
Investments Not Considered (Exceptions #5 and #6)
The terms of the agreement with the Vendor performing the
due diligence services stated the Vendor would receive as payment for services,
1.25% to 2% of the invested amount. The
fee paid was 2% of the amount invested, or $255,600. The vendor was asked to provide due diligence
services leading to a conclusion as to the viability of one specific private
equity investment. Management did not
solicit from this vendor or any other vendor information on the viability of
other alternate investment choices.
By paying the vendor on a commission or a contingent fee
basis, the Commission may have created an incentive for the vendor to recommend
the private equity investment.
Specifically, there was no contractual means for the vendor to be paid
under the signed contract if the investment was not made.
The Commission did not consider other private equity investment
choices for this asset allocation category.
We noted that in each category of the Offering analysis report prepared
by the vendor there were potential red flags as to the soundness of the
investment.
Despite the red flags noted the vendor recommended the
investment in the Bank and the Commission purchased the $12.78 million
investment on September 30, 2008. By the
end of fiscal year 2010, the Commission determined the entire $12.78 million
value of the investment was worthless when the Bank was taken over by the FDIC.
According to Commission management, the Commission believed
the fee arrangement was appropriate and consistent with the Vendor’s price
proposal and contingent fee proposals from other qualified vendors in response
to the RFP that were based upon the principal amount of securities
offered. Commission management stated
the decision to consider only the one Bank investment was a business
decision. (Finding 1, pages 35-39)
We recommended the following:
• The Commission should comply with the Procurement Code and
Administrative Rule in procuring professional and artistic services.
• The Commission should establish policies whereby RFP’s are
thoroughly reviewed before issuance to ensure that all aspects of the needed
services are thoroughly described in the document.
• If one RFP is being issued to solicit vendors for multiple
and/or varying services, the pricing portion of the RFP should provide a
detailed schedule or table specifying the manner in which pricing should be provided
for the different types of services requested.
• The Commission should process and approve all contracts in
writing before the beginning of the contract period or commencement of any
services.
• The Commission should ensure that the provisions of
contracts are performed and documented before paying vendors for services.
• The Commission should revisit contingent fee based
compensation methods when contracting for opinions on investment purchase
decisions that may influence the objectivity or the perception of objectivity
of the opinion rendered.
• The Commission should consider taking into account other
alternate investments choices when making investment decisions.
The Commission accepted our recommendations and stated that
while appropriate procurement procedures were followed, ISAC’s future RFP’s
will have more precise descriptions of services to be solicited with clearer
pricing requirements. The Commission stated that it has changed its procedures
for RFP’s that result in a large number of qualified bidders in order to ensure
that services begin only after the contract is signed. Further the Commission indicated it will
review contingent-fee compensation and consider taking into account different
investment choices when making investment decisions.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
Our auditors stated the financial statements of the Program
are fairly presented in all material respects.
Auditors included a paragraph emphasizing that the Program has a deficit
of $338 million as of June 30, 2010.
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND
Auditor General
WGH:JAF:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Our special assistant auditors for this audit were McGladrey & Pullen LLP.