Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority
MEMORANDUM
TO: Raul Regalado, President and CEO
CC: Greg Garner, Director of Properties
Don Easton, Manager of Properties
Monty Burgess, Senior Vice President and COO
Doug Wolfe, Senior Vice President and CFO
Jami McLeod, Controller
Aaron Evans, Assistant Manager of Operations
FROM: Julie Zwicknagel, Internal Auditor
DATE: April 14, 2006
SUBJ: Mercury Air Centers Audit Report
Background
Mercury Air Center, LLC (“Mercury”) is a Fixed Base Operator (“FBO”) at the Nashville
International Airport. Mercury is one of two FBO’s currently operating at the Airport and
provides a variety of services, including aircraft fueling, line service, aircraft maintenance,
aircraft charter, aircraft hangar storage, and flight instruction.
Stevens Aviation, Inc. (“Stevens”), the previous FBO, and the Metropolitan Nashville Airport
Authority (“Authority”) entered into an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement effective
July 1, 1992, for a term of twenty years. It provides for a rental adjustment every five (5)
years based on changes in the Cost of Living Index. On June 11, 1997, Stevens and Mercury
Air Group, Inc. entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, which provided the for the sale by
Stevens of certain assets in connection with its FBO operation at the Airport and the desire to
assign to Mercury, Steven’s rights and obligations of the Amended and Restated Lease
Agreement. Mercury subleases a portion of its operations to Stevens, which performs the
aircraft maintenance portion of Mercury’s FBO service.
On July 29, 1997, Mercury assumed Steven’s Lease Agreement. The lease agreement requires
that Mercury comply with the “Minimum Standards for Equipping & Operating a General
Fixed Base Operation at the Nashville International Airport, Nashville, Tennessee”, dated
April 1992. In addition to an annual rental for the use of the premises, Mercury is required to
pay the Authority a fuel flowage fee of $0.06 per gallon on all fuels and oils sold, dispensed,
or consumed from, on, or about the premises.
On October 11, 2002, the lease agreement was assigned from Mercury Air Group to Mercury
Air Center, LLC due to a corporate reorganization and name change.
Article XV. TERMINATION BY AUTHORITY, Section 15.1 of the Lease Agreement with
Mercury, provides that the Authority may terminate some or all of the Lease Agreement for
Airport modification or expansion in order to adequately provide airport facilities and air
service. To exercise this right, the Board of Commissioners is required to determine, by
resolution, in an open meeting at which Mercury will be afforded an opportunity to be heard,
that the premises is necessary for airport modification or expansion. If such a resolution is
adopted, Mercury will be given six (6) months to vacate the area. Mercury is given the right to
terminate the Lease Agreement if they determine that the remaining lease area is not useful to
them for the purposes described in the Lease Agreement.
On December 17, 2003, the Authority, by Board Resolution No. 03-12, reclaimed 18.16 acres
of land and facilities within the Mercury leasehold to accommodate corporate/GA aviation
development. Prior to Resolution No. 03-12, Mercury’s lease agreement included the
following land and facilities:
Mercury Rental Summary
Square Annual
Description Footage Rental
Tract No. 1
Bldg. 4201 20,387 $20,519.52
Bldg. 4202 17,877 $17,993.20
Improved Land 76,783 $15,264.46
Unimproved Land 295,124 $27,033.36
Total 410,171 $80,810.54
Tract No. 2
Unimproved Land 141,224 $12,936.12
Tract No. 3
Unimproved Land 649,808 $59,522.41
Tract No. 4
Bldg. 4205 46,000 $46,299.00
Improved Land 336,982 $66,992.02
Unimproved Land 101,113 $9,261.95
Total 484,095 $122,552.97
Nortel
Bldg. 4252 6,930 $24,591.80
Hangar 14 19,500 $69,197.70
2
Improved Land 149,196 $29,063.38
Unimproved Land 55,415 $4,970.73
Total 231,041 $127,823.61
Grand Total 1,916,339 $403,645.65
Accordingly, Resolution No. 03-12 reclaimed “Tracts No. 2 & 3” of land and facilities
consisting of 18.16 acres of land, 20 T-Hangars, 47 Shade Hangars, and the Nortel Hangar
facility including Bldg. 4252 and Hangar 14, effective July 1, 2004. The Authority received a
total of Two Hundred Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-two and 14/100 Dollars ($200,282.14)
per year in rental for this area, which consisted of the following:
Tract No. 2 $12,936.12
Tract No. 3 $59,522.41
Nortel $127,823.61
Total $200,282.14
The remainder of the leasehold consists of “Tracts No. 1 & 4.” The Authority receives a total
of Two Hundred Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-three and 51/100 Dollars ($203,563.51)
per year in rentals.
On July 1, 2004, the Authority entered into a Property Management Agreement with Mercury
to manage, operate, repair and maintain the aircraft storage hangars consisting of the
reclaimed 20 T-Hangars, 47 Shade Hangars, and the Nortel Hangar facility. The Agreement
was for an initial term of six (6) months and continued on a month-to-month basis until
properly terminated by either party.
According to the Property Management Agreement, Mercury should perform, on behalf of the
Authority, real property management services described in Section 3 (a)-(j) of the Agreement,
with respect to the Hangars. Summarized below are some of the essential terms with respect
to Section 3 of the Agreement:
(a) Renting or leasing the Hangars on terms and conditions approved and provided
by the Authority;
(b) Entering into, renewing and/or canceling leases for said hangars facilities on a
month to month basis;
(c) Collecting from the lessees and giving receipts therefore, and remitting to the
Authority rents collected;
(h) Provide sufficient personnel to assure the movement of aircraft into and out of
the community hangar consistent with service agreements entered into with
aircraft owners.
Additionally, the Authority agreed to pay Mercury a property management fee of fifteen
percent (15%) of gross monthly rentals, collections, and other receipts actually received by
the Authority, for all 20 T-Hangars and 47 Shade Hangars, and 50% of gross month rentals,
3
collections, and other receipts actually received by the Authority for the Nortel Hangar
facility, plus all credit card fees and related payment processing costs.
The Property Management Agreement between the Authority and Mercury was effective from
July 1, 2004 through August 1, 2005. On August 1, 2005, the Authority began direct oversight
of the T-Hangars, Shade Hangars, and the Nortel Hangar facility.
As of July 1, 2005, Mercury is operating under the comprehensive Aeronautical Service
Operator Minimum Standards at the Nashville International Airport. The Minimum Standards
replaced and revised the Minimum Standards for Equipping & Operating a General Fixed
Base Operations dated April 1, 1992.
Objectives
The objectives of the audit were as follows:
1. Determine validity of monthly payments made to the Authority, including the accurate
reporting of fuel and oil subject to flowage fees;
2. Determine compliance with contract terms and operational requirements;
3. Document and evaluate the Authority’s current procedures in place to monitor
Mercury’s compliance with contract terms and operational requirements;
4. Determine compliance with Mercury’s Property Management Agreement; and
5. Document and evaluate internal controls.
Testing
In order to satisfy the audit objectives, the following tests were performed:
1. Obtained from MNAA Accounts Receivable the monthly fixed rent invoices for the
period of July 2004 through June 2005. Verified the invoiced amount agreed to the
schedule of rental fees and charges in the lease.
2. Selected three months for detailed testing. For each month selected, performed the
following:
a. Obtained a detailed fuel report from Mercury
i. Reviewed the report to mathematical accuracy;
ii. Tied amounts per report to amounts reported to the Authority; and
iii. Tied daily sales amounts to customer invoices and fuel tickets.
3. Obtained a copy of the Tennessee Sales and Use Tax form and tied sales amount per
sales tax form to amount reported to the Authority.
4. Selected three months for detail testing and performed the following:
a. Tied the beginning inventory to the prior month’s ending inventory;
b. On a test basis, traced the fuel purchases to invoices and bills of lading to
confirm fuel purchase amounts;
4
c. Tied the ending inventory reported to the inventory logs on file at Mercury;
and
d. On a test basis, tied sales amounts reported to the Authority to sales tickets on
file at Mercury. Confirmed that the beginning and ending meter readings for
each sales ticket were consistent with the number of gallons reported.
5. Performed observations of the leasehold premises and determined the premises were
maintained in a clean, neat, sanitary, and attractive condition and appearance.
6. Obtained and reviewed Mercury’s current certificate of insurance to verify compliance
with the contractual insurance requirements.
7. Determined with the Authority’s Planning, Design, and Construction department that
no outstanding environmental issues exist with Mercury.
8. Determined through discussions with Operations personnel that no major operational
or maintenance issues exist with Mercury.
9. Determined through discussions with Properties personnel, Mercury’s compliance
with contract terms.
10. Determined the procedures in place to monitor Mercury’s compliance with contract
terms and operational requirements.
11. Determined compliance with Property Management Agreement from July 1, 2004
through August 1, 2005, by performing the following:
a. Determined rentals, collections, and other receipts were properly remitted to
the Authority;
b. Determined property management fees were paid according to the contractual
agreement;
c. Verified Mercury obtained prior written approval from the Authority for
expenditures in excess of Five Hundred Dollars ($500);
d. Determined Mercury was reimbursed for direct costs and expenses incurred by
the performance of its management duties; and
e. Determined compliance with fidelity bond requirements.
12. Through inquiry and observation, reviewed the existing internal controls in place.
Conclusion
Based upon the audit, the following was determined with respect to the stated objectives:
1. Mercury should make certain controls are in place to verify the physical fuel inventory
at the end of the month as noted in finding #1.
2. Mercury’s Customer Service Representatives are entering the meter readings from the
customer fuel tickets into Mercury’s fuel software system but are not always assigning
the meter readings to the correct fuel truck as noted in finding #2.
3. Mercury’s oil inventory is not monitored on a daily basis as noted in finding #3.
4. Mercury’s certificate of insurance does not indicate adequate coverage for personal
injury and hangar keepers insurance as noted in finding #4.
5. There is not signed documentation by the Authority and Mercury to support the
Authority’s reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury as noted in finding #5.
5
6. The Authority is not in compliance with the FBO inspection policy as noted in finding
#6.
7. Proper supporting documentation was not attached to a check request form to pay
Mercury property management fees as noted in finding #7.
8. Mercury could not find evidence of the fidelity bond requirement being satisfied under
the Property Management Agreement as noted in finding #8.
Finding #1
Observation
Mercury should make certain controls are in place to verify the physical fuel inventory at the
end of the month.
Background
An objective of the audit was to verify the fuel inventory information submitted to the
Authority for the months of April, May, and June 2005. Discrepancies have been noted
between the Fuel Flowage Reports, which are submitted to the Authority on a monthly basis
and Mercury’s Daily Fuel Inventory Reports. The table below provides the detail of the
discrepancies noted:
Inventory Inventory per
per Fuel Daily Fuel
Flowage Inventory
Fuel Report Report Variance
April 2005:
Avgas 11,566 10,835 731
Jet A 27,187 28,304 (1,117)
Total 38,753 39,139 (386)
May 2005:
Avgas 7,087 6,798 289
Jet A 35,010 28,942 6,068
Total 42,097 35,740 6,357
June 2005:
Avgas 9,357 9,357 -
Jet A 25,244 24,971 273
Total 34,601 34,328 273
The current process for accounting for the physical fuel inventory consists of Mercury’s Line
Manager performing daily stick measurements on the fuel tanks and recording this
information on a Daily Fuel Inventory Report. At the end of the month, the Line Manager
contacts Mercury’s Bookkeeper with the physical inventory information for the month and the
6
Bookkeeper makes a monthly inventory adjustment to reconcile the fuel inventory from book
quantity to the actual quantity on hand. The Bookkeeper is not verifying the physical
inventory information before making the monthly inventory adjustments and accordingly the
adjustments made do not agree with the actual inventory on hand per the Daily Fuel Inventory
Reports.
The discrepancies noted are not considered material in nature but proper controls need to be in
place in order for the Authority to be able to rely on Mercury’s fuel inventory information
reported on the monthly Fuel Flowage Reports.
Recommendation
The Line Manager should provide the Bookkeeper with a copy of the end of the month Daily
Fuel Inventory Report to verify the physical fuel inventory at the end of the month before
making an inventory adjustment. Additionally, a copy of the Daily Fuel Inventory Report
should be attached to the inventory adjustment for supporting documentation for the inventory
adjustment made.
Management Response
Properties will request Mercury to implement the recommendation.
Finding #2
Observation
Mercury’s Customer Service Representatives are entering the meter readings from customer
fuel tickets into Mercury’s fuel software system but are not always assigning the meter
readings to the correct fuel truck.
Background
When an aircraft is fueled, the beginning and ending fuel meter readings are recorded on a
fuel ticket. The difference between the beginning and ending meter readings determines the
amount of fuel that has been pumped. Mercury’s Customer Service Representatives enter the
meter readings from customer fuel tickets into Mercury’s fuel software system but are not
always assigning the meter readings to the correct fuel truck. The fuel trucks are assigned a
number in the fuel software system that correlates to the meter for each fuel truck. If the
Customer Services Representatives does not choose the correct truck number, then the meter
readings are inaccurate on the Fuel Meter Justification Report.
The Fuel Meter Justification report lists the beginning and ending meter readings for each
fueling and identifies any “breaks” or “overlaps” in the fuel meters. The Fuel Meter
Justification Report for the period February 1, 2006 through February 27, 2006, indicates a
7
total of 110 breaks or overlaps in the fuel meters. Such breaks or overlaps could identify
instances of entering the incorrect truck numbers, which would cause a break in the meter
number sequences. For example, if the ending meter reading for a fueling is 4921949 and the
beginning fuel reading of the next documented fueling is 4922105, it can be determined that
inaccurate fuel truck and meter readings were entered into the fuel software system or that
156 gallons of fuel have been pumped without documentation. It is unlikely that fuel flowage
is not being recorded as a sale because fuel sales were thoroughly analyzed through the audit
process and no discrepancies were identified. It is more probable that fuel meter readings are
not consistently entered accurately into Mercury’s software.
Additionally, the Fuel Meter Justification Report could serve as a secondary confirmation that
the quantity of fuel sold agrees to the quantity of fuel sales reported to the Authority. For
example, if the Fuel Meter Justification Report indicates that 500,000 gallons of fuel have
been pumped throughout the month, while only 450,000 gallons of fuel sales are reported to
the Authority, the discrepancy in fuel flowage could be easily identified and researched. As
the fuel meter readings are not consistently entered accurately into Mercury’s software, the
Fuel Meter Justification report is of little value.
It should be noted that a previous Fuel Meter Justification finding was identified in a prior
Mercury audit report dated November 25, 2002; however, the finding related to Mercury not
always entering meter readings into the system. Mercury is entering the meter readings from
customer fuel tickets into Mercury’s fuel software system but is not always assigning the
meter readings to the correct fuel truck.
Recommendation
Mercury should perform a daily fuel ticket reconciliation to ensure that proper internal
controls are in place to monitor the accurate recording of fueling information. This would
allow Mercury to rely on reporting information and to utilize the Fuel Justification Report as a
valuable resource tool.
Management Response
Properties will request Mercury to implement the recommendation.
Finding #3
Observation
Mercury’s oil inventory is not monitored on a daily basis.
8
Background
Mercury’s oil inventory is not monitored on a daily basis. The only oil information recorded
on a daily basis is oil sales; therefore, when the oil inventory is counted and recorded at the
end of the month, any difference between the book quantity and the actual quantity on hand is
simply adjusted off. As a result, instances of pilfering of oil may not be identified in a timely
manner.
It should be noted that this finding was identified in a prior Mercury audit report dated
November 25, 2002, which recommended Mercury’s management to consider establishing a
policy that requires oil inventory to be included in the Daily Fuel Inventory Report; however,
Mercury’s management did not implement the recommendation.
Through inquiries with Properties personnel and Mercury’s management, the previous
recommendation was reviewed and all parties have agreed that oil sales are not a significant
source of revenue for Mercury but that there are currently no controls in place to monitor the
oil inventory. The current audit recommendation has been discussed with Mercury’s
management and they have agreed upon the implementation.
Recommendation
Mercury should set up oil as an inventory item in their software system to ensure oil is
properly monitored and to strengthen internal controls.
Management Response
Properties will request Mercury to implement the recommendation.
Finding #4
Observation
Mercury’s certificate of insurance does not indicate adequate coverage for personal injury and
hangar keepers’ insurance.
Background
ARTICLE XIII. INSURANCE AND BONDS, Section 13.1 of Mercury’s Amended and
Restated Lease Agreement states that “Lessee agrees to maintain comprehensive public
liability and property damage insurance in the amounts of:
A. Personal Injury – Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per accident; Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per person.
B. Property Damage – One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident.
9
C. Products Liability included as part of Personal Injury and Property Damage.
D. Comprehensive Automobile Liability – One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined
single limit.
E. Hangar Keepers’ Insurance – Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000).
F. Aircraft Liability – One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) single limit.”
Mercury satisfies the comprehensive automobile liability requirement by an insurance policy
with American Home Assurance Company for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). The aircraft
liability insurance requirement is fulfilled by an insurance policy with XL Specialty Insurance
Company in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).
However, the remaining Lloyd’s London & Companies certificate of insurance did not clearly
identify the insurance limits; therefore, inquiries were made with Properties and Finance
personnel. With the assistance of the Authority’s CFO, Mercury’s certificate of insurance and
contract requirements were forwarded to Willis Global Aviation to assist in determining
Mercury’s compliance with insurance limits.
It was confirmed through Willis Global Aviation that the Loyd’s London & Companies
insurance policy covered personal injury, property damage, products liability, and hangar
keepers’ insurance requirements in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each
occurrence. The property damage and products liability coverage are maintained at adequate
coverage; however, the personal injury and hangar keepers’ insurance coverage is insufficient
as Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) is required.
Recommendation
Properties should notify Mercury of non-compliance with the personal injury and hangar
keepers’ insurance coverage requirements of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Mercury
needs to increase the personal injury and hangar keepers’ insurance limits by One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) and provide Properties with a copy of the new certificate of insurance.
Additionally, Properties should verify upon receipt that certificate of insurance requirements
meet lease agreement terms and document compliance in Properties insurance files.
Management Response
Internal Audit made Properties aware of this during the audit process. Properties
immediately contacted Mercury and an updated certificate with the appropriate insurance
limits has been received and filed. Properties concludes that this is an isolated issue.
However, Properties has reviewed the process of reviewing insurance certificates with the
Department. Properties also randomly spot-checked 30 files to review the Certificates of
Insurance and found each to be in order.
10
Finding #5
Observation
There is not signed documentation by the Authority and Mercury to support the Authority’s
reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury.
Background
On December 17, 2003, the Authority, by Board Resolution No. 03-12, reclaimed land and
facilities within the Mercury leasehold to accommodate corporate/GA aviation development.
The reclaimed land and facilities included 18.16 acres of land, 20 T-Hangars, 47 Shade
Hangars, and the Nortel Hangar facility. The Authority received a total of Two Hundred
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-two and 14/100 Dollars ($200,282.14) per year in rental for
this area. The Authority’s reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury was effective
July 1, 2004.
The Board Secretary, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, General Counsel, and the
President and CEO, signed Resolution No 03-12, which was a unilateral decision by the
Authority to reclaim land and facilities from Mercury to accommodate corporate/GA aviation
development.
According to Article XX. Amendment, Section 20.1 of the Mercury Lease Agreement, "This
lease constitutes the entire Lease between the parties. No amendment, modification, or
alteration of the terms of this Lease shall be binding unless the same be in writing, dated
subsequent to the date hereof and duly executed by the parties hereto."
However, there is not signed documentation by both parties, the Authority and Mercury, to
support the Authority’s reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury as required by
Article XX. Amendment, Section 20.1 of the Mercury Lease Agreement.
During the course of the audit, Internal Audit and Legal reviewed the aforementioned
Mercury Lease Agreement issues and agreed that there should be signed documentation by
both parties to document the Authority’s reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury.
Recommendation
Although Resolution No. 03-12 was a unilateral decision, the Authority should attempt to
execute a letter signed by the Authority and Mercury to include in Properties files to
document the Authority’s reclaiming of the land and facilities from Mercury.
Management Response
Properties will obtain a letter from Mercury documenting the Authority’s reclaiming of the
land and facilities referenced above.
11
Finding #6
Observation
The Authority is not in compliance with the FBO inspection policy.
Background
The Authority’s Procedure No. 5-110 effective August 1, 1992, has established guidelines and
procedures for inspections of FBOs. This procedure states the following:
“Inspections of all FBO facilities will be conducted quarterly by the Operations Division.
Three of these inspections shall be general in nature and shall include condition of buildings,
services, grounds and other abnormal conditions. A follow up letter will be sent to the FBO
within one week of the visit noting any conditions, which require attention.
One inspection will be conducted utilizing the MNAA General Aviation Fixed Base
Minimum Standards Compliance and Facilities Inspection Report. One copy of the completed
inspection report will be furnished to the FBO with a suspense date on any irregularities. The
FBO will be responsible for notifying MNAA when all irregularities have been corrected, at
which time a follow up inspection will be performed to verify compliance. The Properties
Division of the Authority will be notified of violation of lease, sublease, or major
discrepancies. The Engineering Division will be notified for appropriate action if structural
deficiencies exits. The Planning Department will be notified for appropriate action if
environmental deficiencies exist.”
It should be noted that this finding was identified in a prior Mercury audit report dated
November 25, 2002, which recommended the following:
“Management should ensure that formal inspections, which are conducted utilizing the
“MNAA General Aviation Fixed Base Minimum Standards Compliance and Facilities
Inspection Report” be conducted annually, as is required by Procedure No. 5-110.
Additionally, an inspection plan, inspection status spreadsheet, or other monitoring
mechanism should be implemented to ensure that all inspections are completed in a timely
manner.”
The last inspection was performed shortly after the previous audit report was issued; however,
there is no information to support that actions have been taken by management to ensure
formal documented inspections of the FBOs have been conducted in accordance with the
existing Procedure No. 5-110 or other monitoring mechanisms implemented to ensure that all
inspections are completed in a timely manner.
Through inquiries with Operations and Properties personnel, the previous recommendation
was reviewed and all parties agreed that Procedure No. 5-110 should be updated into a
comprehensive procedure that encompasses all compliance aspects of the FBO.
12
Recommendation
Operations should update Procedure No. 5-110 to combine the operational, environmental,
properties, and safety issues into a comprehensive procedure that encompasses all compliance
aspects of the FBO. The inspection report format should be revised to include the key areas
involved in the inspection process. Operations, Environmental, Properties, and Department of
Public Safety (“DPS”) should coordinate joint inspections and submit results of the inspection
to the Authority’s Senior Vice President and COO.
A tracking system should be used to monitor and assure that these inspections are
accomplished. Although this is not a contract requirement, an entry could be made in
Properties Lease Management System to notify the departments involved in the inspection
process.
Management Response
Properties agrees with including a suspense reminder date for FBO inspections in its Lease
Management System and will notify Operations when the quarterly and annual inspections
are called for. Operations should submit a proposed schedule for getting this process started.
Although the formal documentation may not have been completed, the FBOs have been under
constant review, which many discrepancies not requiring major capital are readily corrected.
The formal documented inspections of the FBOs should and will be conducted in accordance
with the procedure No.5-110 as currently written.
MNAA’s oversight of the FBOs has evolved where Operations has almost daily inspections
and contact. Planning conducts daily inspections and quarterly environmental inspections.
DPS conducts quarterly fuel farm inspections per FAA Part 139 and Properties conducts
lease management records as well as regular onsite inspections.
Procedure No 5-110 has been reviewed; however, has not been updated, pending revision of
the FBO minimum standard. Operations will immediately solicit guidance from the Vice
President of Continuous Improvements to consider establishing a Six Sigma rapid action team
to update Procedure No. 5-110. This proposed rapid action team would be led by Greg
Garner, with Aaron Evans, Ken Whately, Dan Masters, Kathy Hatter, and Phil Hereford. The
rapid action team will address the issues outlined in this audit, merger and dissemination of
all the above-mentioned inspections and other outdated items. The rapid action team should
complete the process within two months.
13
Finding #7
Observation
Proper supporting documentation was not attached to a check request form to pay Mercury
property management fees.
Background
An objective of the audit was to determine property management fees were paid according to
the contractual agreement. The property management fees paid to Mercury were reviewed and
appeared to be reasonable and paid according to the contractual agreement. However, through
reviewing Finance’s accounts payable files for payment information, a minor discrepancy was
identified. A payment was made to Mercury for property management fees in the amount of
$16,745.21 on November 4, 2005, without supporting documentation attached to the check
request form.
Through reviewing Properties files for compliance with the Property Management
Agreement, supporting documentation was found to support the $16,745.21 check request
form; however, the supporting documentation was not provided to Finance with the check
request form.
According to the Accounts Payable Procedure No. 3-551, “All invoices presented for payment
will be reviewed to ensure that they contain proper approvals, evidence that goods and
services have been received and that amounts due are properly stated. Invoices that are not
properly documented according to Compliance Procedures will not be paid. It is incumbent on
Finance to maintain appropriate files for audit purposes.”
Recommendation
Proper supporting documentation should be attached to invoices submitted to Finance for
payment. The department head or manager approving invoices should make certain there is
proper support for the payment before signing their approval.
In addition, when proper supporting documentation is not attached to an invoice, Finance
should not pay the invoice and return the invoice to the requesting department for proper
support.
Management Response
The invoice supporting information was in Properties and had been reviewed. This type of
information will be attached to future invoices.
The supporting documentation “Mercury Air Center – Summary of Tenant Payments 2005”
(calendar year) was maintained at Properties. Sometimes a copy was forwarded to Finance
with the check request. Other times the check request was presented with no backup and the
14
backup was then requested and later forwarded. If the Mercury contract had not terminated
in 2005, Finance would have begun to hold the invoice until the supporting documentation
was produced in hard copy. As MNAA work towards a paperless environment for processes
like this one, the MNAA procedures will need to be updated to reference electronic links to
these master workpapers.
Finding #8
Observation
Mercury could not find evidence of the fidelity bond requirement being satisfied under the
Property Management Agreement.
Background
According to Section 3 (j)(6) of the Property Management Agreement between the Authority
and Mercury effective July 1, 2004 through August 1, 2005, Mercury shall “Procure a fidelity
bond in the amount of not less than Twenty-Five Thousand and No/100 ($25,000) for all of
the Agent’s employees who regularly handle or are responsible for the Authority’s moneys.”
Mercury was unable to provide Internal Audit with a copy of the fidelity bond to document
compliance with the Property Management Agreement.
The Authority’s contracting process requires copies of certificate of insurance, payment and
performance bonds to be submitted along with a copy of the signed contracting document.
Properties should have requested Mercury to submit a copy of the fidelity bond along with
Mercury’s signed copy of the Property Management Agreement.
Recommendation
In the future, Properties should make certain all the required documentation, including but not
limited to, insurance, letters of credit, payment and performance bonds, deposits, etc. are
received and accepted prior to the execution of the contract or agreement.
Management Response
Properties cannot find evidence that the fidelity bond was received. To address matters of the
type, Properties will not recommend execution of new agreements until all the required
documentation, including but not limited to, insurance, letters of credit, deposits, licenses, etc.
including fidelity bonds, are received and accepted.
15