Archives for February 2018

MANITOWOC, Wis. – Americollect was named the Large Business of the Year last Tuesday night at the 101^st Annual Dinner and Meeting of The Chamber of Manitowoc County, which was held at the Holiday Inn in Manitowoc.

Americollect has experienced continued growth under Kenlyn T. Gretz’s leadership and has grown from 12 employees in 1999 to more than 250 employees today. “Our consistent growth over the years can be directly contributed to our hardworking team members at Americollect. Our team really shows passion for what they do. Team members work closely with patients to help them resolve their medical debt. They show compassion and understanding and are truly living out our Ridiculously Nice commitment,” stated Kenlyn T. Gretz, President and CEO of Americollect.

The culture at Americollect is another aspect of the company that plays a crucial role in their growth. “Our culture is very unique and it means a great deal to us. We put time and effort into the culture to ensure it is always being strengthened. We have a culture of passion. Passion for our work, and passion for the team that we work with,” stated Gretz. “Our culture is the glue that keeps our company moving towards one common goal, helping others reach their goals of paying off their medical debt. Our culture is one of family and love.”

Americollect is currently on a mission to change the way collection agencies are viewed. Gretz stated, “By using our Ridiculously Nice approach we are demonstrating to patients, clients and others that we are here to help. It brings us joy to see patients reach their goals of making that last payment.”

Visit us at www.americollect.com.

Accounts Receivable Management, like many other lean industries, has had a long-standing need to minimize headcount and other overhead expenses, while also delivering performance and high levels of service for customers. How have we done it? Like so many others, we partner with vendors, such as collection agencies, to get the job done. But changes in the way companies oversee and partner with vendors has become more costly and complex.  

Scorecards have been a versatile tool to help decision makers oversee collection agency performance in both absolute and comparative terms. For a tool in such widespread use, however, there is surprisingly little uniformity or standardization. This is not a “dig” so much as a rallying cry for something we all need.

As scorecards stand today, are they doing the job(s) we need them to do? Or instead, have they become yet another data stream that goes into the wind without informing any meaningful business decisions? To be sure, scorecards shouldn’t just be something we complete each month or quarter simply out of habit, to be able to check a box. They should be designed and weighted in such a way that they drive improved performance and accurately influence business decisions about the client-vendor partnership.

A brief history of vendor scorecards

Pre 2009(ish), agency management scorecards (if they even formally existed) were centered on driving performance. Agency managers had a great deal of autonomy to independently onboard new agencies, increase and decrease agency volume, and hire and eliminate agencies as they saw fit. Scorecards were a way to take formal measurement of things like “paid to productive time,” “right party contacts,” “promises to pay,” “check by phone volumes/conversion,” among others.

Post 2009, regulatory changes drove sweeping redesign and ushered in an overlay that formalized the measurement of risk, compliance and control. Scorecards became a must-have, with a new job to standardize “performing” and to consistently measure against that definition. What constituted performing broadened to include how well agencies were able to comply with rules such as verbal and written disclosures, call times, max call attempts, and more. Onsite visits became standardized, more frequent and more extensive.

Today’s scorecard

The modern vendor scorecard has has added a critically important third layer — a focus on the customer experience. While this has always been one element of performance, most industries have discovered why it’s important for the customer experience to carry much more weight than it did before.

So here we are. As an industry, our scorecards now attempt to measure everything: collections effectiveness, efficiency, compliance and the customer experience. Has this empowered us to make better decisions? As we move toward collecting more and more data, do we have a plan for what we’ll do with that information?

The future of scorecards

The scorecard is overdue for a double-check. It’s always worth re-evaluating what can be lightened or shifted on the scorecard, without compromising oversight in any one category. Are we over or under investing in call monitoring? Do we do too many or too few onsite visits? Is the weighting on the scorecard balanced enough to drive the desired performance, but not spread across so many metrics that it’s watered down? What’s not being measured on scorecards that the business landscape ahead of us suggests should be measured?  

The list of criteria warranting revaluation and challenge is long, but the upside to taking on the task is huge. For this reason, insideARM has kicked off an industry benchmarking study of vendor scorecards — insights from which we’ll debut at our 2018 First Party Summit. Getting a clear sense of how your scorecards compare to your peers’ can absolutely help drive the evolution of your business.

If you haven’t already done so, take our benchmarking survey. To join other industry leaders in taking the scorecard conversation deeper at our 2018 First Party Summit, register here.

 

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – The results of a six-year study of consumers enrolled in debt settlement programs, commissioned by the American Fair Credit Council (AFCC) and performed by the Certified Public Accounting firm of Hemming Morse LLP, once again shows consumers realize financial benefit from debt settlement program participation.  Furthermore, the study illustrates that consumers have realized greater benefits since regulation of the industry went into effect in 2010.  The most recent report, the third of its kind since the AFCC first commissioned the study back in 2012, tracks the outcomes of over 400,000 clients in 2.9 million accounts enrolled in debt settlement programs during the period January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2017.  

The 2017 study represents the most comprehensive, forensic analysis of its kind, and documents the economic benefit consumers received as a result of their participation in debt settlement programs over the past decade.  The study revealed several positive findings for consumers seeking relief from the burden of credit card debt.  Most notable among the findings are that consumers are receiving financial benefit in the form of debt reduction resulting from regulations imposed on the debt settlement industry through the Revised Telemarketing Sales Rule in October of 2010 by the Federal Trade Commission and The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  For consumers struggling with unsecured debt, the data clearly shows that debt settlement offers significant advantages compared to other options.  Key takeaways include: 

• Debt settlement on average saves consumers $2.64 for every $1 in fees paid
• More than 95% of debt settlement clients receive savings in excess of fees
• Most consumers see initial account settlements within 4-6 months of program start
• Debt settlement clients pay no fees until settlements are completed

Robby Birnbaum, President of the AFCC commented, “This report validates what our association and its members have known for years; debt settlement programs can offer struggling consumers a proven path to improved financial health.  While not for everyone, these programs offer consumers tremendous benefit and an important lifeline towards an improved balance sheet and financial stability.”

For more information or to obtain a copy of the report, visit the American Fair Credit Council’s website at www.americanfaircreditcouncil.org. 

About The American Fair Credit Council

The American Fair Credit Council (AFCC) is the leading association of professional Consumer Credit Advocates.  The AFCC, and its member companies, work to represent the rights of consumers struggling with the overwhelming burden of debt.  The AFCC has developed a strict Code of Conduct centered on best practices designed to protect the rights of consumers and require member companies to follow strict regulatory guidelines for operation.  All AFCC members operate on a “No Advanced Fee Model” and never charge a fee for services until a consumer’s debt has been successfully negotiated.  

Contact:

Robby Birnbaum – President
The American Fair Credit Council
Phone:  (888) 657-8272
Website: www.americanfaircreditcouncil.org
Email:  admin@americanfaircreditcouncil.org

About Hemming Morse LLP

Founded in 1958, Hemming Morse, LLP is a national firm leading the accounting industry in Forensic and Financial Consulting Services, as well as Financial and Compliance Auditing of Employee Benefit Plans.  Based in California, with more than 100 employees working from offices in San Francisco, San Mateo, Los Angeles, Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa, Fresno and Chico, Hemming Morse handles complex and high-profile assignments that are local, regional, national and international in scope.

Contact:

Greg J. Regan, CPA/CFF, Partner
Hemming Morse LLP
Phone: (415) 836-4034
Website:  www.hemming.com
Email:  regang@hemming.com  

This article originally appeared on the Consumer Financial Services Legal Update. It is republished with permission from the author.

A number of Circuit Courts of Appeal have addressed Spokeo challenges to consumer protection statutes in the 646 days (and counting) since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016). Most of those decisions have given the issue of standing short shrift, leapt to conclusions or—perhaps worst of all—shown a deep and unrelenting deference to Congressional legislative power in assessing Article III limits. The result has been languid opinions and squishy legal doctrine in the arena of standing, where only precision and intellectual rigor ought to prevail.

No case better exemplifies this unfortunate era of judicial abdication than the Eleventh Circuit’s flubbed-and-yet-often-cited-unpublished-nightmare-opinion of Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., 654 Fed. Appx. 990 (11th Cir. 2016). There it was held, in essence, that whenever Congress passes a statute purporting to create a new right, it also creates a new harm—the deprivation of that right when the statute is not complied with. Just like that, it seemed, Spokeo was de-fanged in the consumer-protection context—all a plaintiff had to do was cast the elements of a consumer protection statute as an affirmative or substantive right and any statutory violation of that “right” necessarily amounted to proof of a concrete “harm” for standing purposes. It was a neat trick, although utterly transparent and intellectually dishonest to high heaven.

Hagy v. Demers & Adams, No. 17-3696, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3710 (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) marks a stark departure from its soft-thinking predecessors, and represents the first intellectual tour-de-force of the post-Spokeo era.

Finally, an opinion that gets it—Spokeo is not some trifling legal curiosity, it is thunder called down from on high to demarcate the limits of Congressional authority to legislate the trifling and insincere. Just as Congress does not have a general police power, it also does not have the power to convert Article III courts into wealth-shifting apparatuses that dispense lotto-style winnings to uninjured plaintiffs fortunate enough to be on the wrong side of a sterile statutory violation. Hagy rejects the “anything-hurts-so-long-as-Congress-says-it-hurts theory of Article III injury,” and reminds that Congress cannot use “its lawmaking power to transform something that is not remotely harmful into something that is.” But I digress.

The facts here are pretty straightforward. A debt collection attorney sends a letter to Plaintiff—ironically enough stating that the creditor will not be taking further steps to collect the debt—but fails to include the required statement that the letter is coming from a debt collector. The requirement of a rubber-stamped debt collector disclosure is one of the myriad ticky-tack requirements of the FDCPA that I find almost as frustrating as errant TCPA jurisprudence (almost). The Plaintiff sued the debt collection lawyer seeking his statutory pound of flesh. The Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s Article III standing, noting that the letter had not caused any harm at all. The district court disagreed and, following Church for the charming principle that the FDCPA “created a new right—the right to receive the required disclosures in communications governed by the FDCPA—and a new injury—not receiving such disclosures,” overruled the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, calling out Church for what it was—weak-willed judicial abdication. Setting the stage, the Court reminds that “[b]road though Congress’s powers may be to define and create injuries, they cannot override constitutional limits.” Drawing from examples of Congressional overreach in other settings—such as legislating without a link to commerce or redefining “property” so as to effect a taking—the Court emphasizes the core obligation of the federal court system to check legislative exuberance when Congress runs roughshod on Constitutional principles. “These limits are essential when it comes to preserving structural boundaries…” the opinion explains. Abdicating to Congress the right to define harms effects a degradation of “the horizontal separation of powers at the national level” and in a manner “that eliminates Article III safeguards…” Accordingly, “[j]ust as there must be some limits on Congress’s power to regulate commerce, there must be some limits on Congress’s power to create injuries in fact suitable for judicial resolution.”

Applying these doctrines, the Sixth Circuit parts ways with Church and concludes that the letter at issue could not possibly have caused “a cognizable injury in fact” and, noting a lack of any Congressional record supporting a contrary view, dismisses the case.

For TCPA defense litigants, there are three key takeaways from Hagy.

1. A separate showing of standing is required for each TCPA claim. This concept is easily stated but regularly forgotten. Just because a plaintiff may have been injured by one phone call does not mean he was injured by another. The Sixth Circuit re-emphasizes this issue in Hagy: “A claimant bears the burden of establishing standing and must show it ‘for each claim he seeks to press.’”

2. If a statutory violation doesn’t actually cause harm, then it doesn’t matter if it violates a statutory right. This sounds like Spokeo, which is not surprising since that’s where Hagy derived the rule. Nonetheless, courts have applied Spokeo unevenly, if not unfaithfully, especially in the TCPA setting. Hagy’s effort to get back to basics—while emphasizing the sophisticated legal and social-theory rationales underlying them—should help re-awaken district courts to the true weight and depth of the Spokeo opinion.

3. The absence of a Congressional record related to the “harm” caused by a statutory violation may mean that no such harm exists. Hagy is the first court to study the legislative record underlying an enactment to ascertain the absence of an articulation of harm for the specific injury-causing device before it. This is pretty neat and something to keep in mind given the lean record supporting the enactment of the TCPA—only telemarketing and random-fired calls are discussed in that legislative history. (I have echoes of Judge Bencivengo’s opinion in Selby v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No.: 3:17-CV-973-CAB-BLM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189995 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017) that the TCPA was only enacted to prevent telemarketing ringing in my ears.)

Also, note that Hagy comes tantalizingly close to interpreting Spokeo as imposing limits on Congressional authority to legislate as opposed to merely imposing jurisdictional limitations on Article III courts. Imagine the possibilities!

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa – LocateSmarter LLC, a leading data and analytics company, and TEC Services Group, Inc. (TEC), a leading provider of analytics consulting services, announced today that the two companies have formed a strategic partnership. TEC clients can now access LocateSmarter’s skip tracing products through TEC’s REVEALDataWorks platform.

TEC’s REVEALDataWorks assists companies with data-driven analysis of third-party skip tracing products. Integrated with LocateSmarter and other data providers, TEC has the ability to run champion/challenger tests with little technical or analytical resources needed from the client. 

LocateSmarter also uses data-driven analysis to provide customizable skip trace solutions for companies in the accounts receivable management industry. Variables such as data sources, hit rate and cell-to-landline distribution can be managed at the portfolio level to provide the best return on investment.

Tom Sweat, TEC President commented, “We are excited to add LocateSmarter as another option on our platform. Their ability to customize their skip tracing products will be a tremendous benefit to our clients.”

Jonathan Brooks, LocateSmarter President added, “Many factors including age of debt, type of debt and balance of debt can affect your skip tracing results. Both TEC and LocateSmarter understand this, so we are happy to offer a more flexible option to the accounts receivable industry and partner with TEC, a company that excels at facilitating tests and providing non-biased data analysis.” 

LocateSmarter will initially provide their phone append product through TEC, and plans to offer additional skip tracing products in the near future. 

To get started with LocateSmarter Phone Append through TEC’s REVEALDataWorks, please contact LocateSmarter at 888-254-5501 or visit locatesmarter.com 

About TEC Services Group

Since 1998, TEC Services Group, Inc. has provided professional, advisory and analytical services to the Credit and Collections industry. Our consultants bring an unparalleled knowledge of accounts receivable management (ARM) and a reputation for being at the top of their field in specialized practice areas. This cross functional team of experienced industry veterans, help collection organizations solve real-world problems across every aspect of their business. For more information, please visit www.tecsg.com.

About LocateSmarter®

LocateSmarter, LLC was formed in 2012 with a mission to deliver next generation, cloud-based skip trace solutions for accounts receivable management and collection purposes. With a focus on high quality data and an intricate understanding of the accounts receivable industry, LocateSmarter has built skip tracing products that improve contact rates, reduce operating costs and minimize the risk of complaints and litigation associated with inaccurate data. 

LocateSmarter has been recognized as an Employer of Choice and received the 2016 Top Collection Product Award. For more information on LocateSmarter and its products, please visit www.locatesmarter.com or call 888-254-5501.

 

VANCOUVER, Wash. – The InterProse Corporation is pleased to announce a strategic relationship with The Intelitech Group.  Together, InterProse and Intelitech offer mutual customers the highest levels of premier data analytics available in the debt recovery market by combining InterProse’s modern software platform with Intelitech’s leading analytics capabilities. 

Matthew Hill, President and CEO of InterProse said, “We believe in leveraging cutting-edge technology as a critical differentiator. We constantly work to improve our software through strategic partnerships and teaming up with Intelitech adds business and data insights already leading to more effective business strategies for our mutual customers.”

Intelitech is a premier analytics & consulting provider for the Accounts Receivables Management (ARM) industry providing consulting and technology solutions to help collection professionals work smarter. Intelitech’s team uses technology to help customers measure, analyze and implement results-oriented solutions, including scoring and data. 

Intelitech pioneered the use, application, and analytics of big data in the ARM space and today serves hundreds of customers across the United States enabling over 600 million intelligence transactions each month.

Jason Melton, Senior Partner, Client Care at The Intelitech Group added, “The Intelitech Group helps customers work smarter by enabling data-driven decisions through analysis of their inventory, workflow, and performance. Our highly regarded, unique, ongoing customer service coupled with the analytics technology sets us apart in the industry.” 

Together, InterProse’s open software platform and Intelitech’s solutions help our customers:

• Find More Revenue by uncovering and deploying best strategies
• Improve Consumer Reach by implementing targeted contact strategies
• Work Safer by identifying high risk and ineligible consumers
• Continuously Improve Performance by evaluating and testing results

By integrating The Intelitech Group’s products into InterProse ACE, users benefit from seamless interfaces and unmatched analytics in the debt recovery software market.

About InterProse

InterProse serves the debt recovery market with its web-based, open-architecture, debt collection software platform. Specializing in efficiency through process automations and capable of integrating third-party technologies to keep pace with modern advancements, InterProse continually upgrades the platform at no charge to its customers and strives to be the most flexible, modern solution available for its target markets of third party debt collections and original credit grantors.

 

LOWELL, Ark. -– Central Research, Inc., a Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE) certified, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business is pleased to announce the appointment of ARM industry veteran Don Taylor as Chief Strategy Officer (CSO). Don joins CRI with 40 years of experience in the ARM industry and he is also a Vietnam Veteran.

Don started his career with Diversified Collection Services, Inc., (now Performant Financial Corporation), in 1978 following an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy. His career expanded to key roles within the ARM industry, including the role of President for three firms; Automated Collection Services, Inc., Education Assistance Services, Inc. and Account Control Technology, Inc.

“We have known Don for 15 years. His wealth of knowledge will be an asset to CRI. His leadership, strategic planning and implementation expertise will contribute to our future growth.” said Scott Dillard, CRI President.
CRI provides multiple services on contracts with federal and state governments for management solutions, collections and identifying improper payments to deceased individuals. Our focus is to seek future opportunities in all these areas on a nationwide basis.

As CSO, Don will work with CRI leadership to develop new business strategies that increase our client base in these service areas within the federal and state government markets and position CRI to expand into the commercial market. He will also provide continuous improvement recommendations for our existing client contracts to further increase CRI’s excellent performance results.

[article_ad]

Taylor commented, “having known John and Scott for many years, the opportunity to join CRI as a key contributor is exciting for me. I am confident that while working with the CRI team, we will accelerate CRI’s growth and market presence.

About CRI

Established in 2006, Central Research, Inc. has offices and program locations in eight states and provides services to seventeen different federal and state agencies and organizations. CRI has been one of the fastest growing federal contractors in the country over the last three years. www.central-research.com

The District of Maryland recently provided clarification on when a debt collector needs to reveal her identity and the purpose of the communication with consumers, known industry-wide as the mini-Miranda. In Price-Richardson v. DCN Holdings, LLC, d/b/a AccountsReceivable.com, 2018 WL 902167 (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2018), the court clarified that providing the mini-Miranda is not necessary when the consumer initiates a call with the debt collector pursuant to a letter that already discloses the debt collector’s identity and the purpose of the debt collector’s communication with the consumer.

Read the decision here. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

A dentist’s office placed plaintiff’s delinquent account with DCN Holdings, LLC for collection. DCN sent a letter to plaintiff where it disclosed that the letter is an attempt to collect a debt. Six months after receiving the letter, plaintiff called DCN to discuss the account. During this call, the DCN representative did not disclose that she was a debt collector or that the call was an attempt to collect a debt.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against DCN in the District of Maryland alleging that, among other things, DCN violated the FDCPA by not disclosing its identity and that DCN was attempting to collect a debt during the telephone call with plaintiff. DCN moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Decision

The court dismissed all counts of the amended complaint in this lawsuit. Specifically on the mini-Miranda issue, the court found that plaintiff already knew the purpose of the communication when she placed the call to DCN. Plaintiff received a letter from DCN that disclosed DCN’s identity and the purpose of its communication with plaintiff. Plaintiff herself argued that the language stating “[t]his is an attempt to collect a debt” triggered her telephone call to DCN. Since this language triggered the call, the court reasoned that plaintiff already knew the purpose of her call to DCN.

The court references a similar California case, Costa v. Nat’l Action Fin. Services, 634 F. Supp.2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2007), which similarly found the disclosure is not required when a consumer responds to a debt collector’s communication “with the understanding of who they are dealing with.” Citing Costa, the court mentioned that “[r]equiring a debt collector to interrupt the conversation to interject she was a debt collector would likely be a pointless formality.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Plaintiff attempts to argue that a Fourth Circuit case, Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 961 F.2d 459 (4th Cir. 1992) requires the mini-Miranda disclosure in all communications with consumers. The court, however, distinguished the instant case from Carroll. 

In Carroll, the debt collector sent an initial letter with the disclosure and a subsequent letter without. Since consumers don’t always receive the initial letter, it is foreseeable that a consumer who initiated a call with the debt collector based on a subsequent letter without such disclosure would not know the purpose of the call. 

In the instant case, the issue is moot according to the court. Plaintiff here received a single letter from DCN. That letter contained DCN’s identity and the purpose of the communication. Since plaintiff initiated the call pursuant to this letter, plaintiff already knew the purpose of the communication, thus not requiring DCN to provide the mini-Miranda during the call.

Analysis

Debt collectors face an uphill battle when communicating with consumers. A conversation to encourage a consumer to resolve an account is difficult enough. It is made even more difficult with the disclosure minefields debt collectors have to navigate. In this decision, the court eases this burden. 

The mini-Miranda allows the consumer to be fully aware of who she is speaking with and the purpose of the communication. The mini-Miranda, however, is a cumbersome and confrontational disclosure that puts consumers on-the-spot. Even its commonly-known industry name is reminiscent of criminal action. Its relation to the Miranda disclosure that law enforcement are required to provide to criminals prior to interrogations is undeniable. Consumers are not criminals, and they should not be treated as such.

With this decision, the court recognizes the awkwardness of interrupting the natural flow of conversation to provide a disclosure that is superfluous since the consumer already knows who they are speaking with. While the mini-Miranda may always exist, courts that attempt to improve the natural flow of debt-related communciation are helping consumers associate improving their financial well-being with dignity rather than shame.

Seventeen suits have so far been filed in the Court of Federal Claims in the matter of the Department of Education (ED) Private Collection Agency (PCA) contract. insideARM reported on February 13, 2018 that three suits had been filed. Since then, fourteen others have entered the fray. The Judge, Thomas Wheeler, has consolidated all of the suits into one case. This is the newest chapter in a story that began in 2014. The February 13 story provides a consolidated background.

The following companies have filed suit and were consolidated under FMS Investment Corp. et al., v. The United States and Performant Recovery, Inc., et al. as follows:

February 13:
1. FMS Investment Corp. (FMS)
2. Account Control Technology, Inc. (Account Control)
3. Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI)
4. GC Services Limited Partnership (GC)
5. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. (TGSLC)
6. The CBE Group, Inc. (CBE)

February 14:
7. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (Pioneer)
8. Progressive Financial Services, Inc. (Progressive)
9. Coast Professional, Inc. (Coast)

February 16:
10. Central Credit Services, LLC (CCS)
11. Delta Management Associates, Inc. (Delta)
12. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc. (Gatestone)
13. Continental Service Group, Inc. (ConServe)
14. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (Immediate Credit)

February 20:
15. Allied Interstate LLC (Allied)
16. Automated Collection Services, Inc. (ACSI)
17. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA (EOS-CCA)

You can download the consolidation order here.

insideARM Perspective

These 17 firms are across the board in their status with the ED contract, including:

• 2 that currently have a small business contract but had bid on the unrestricted (Coast and Immediate Credit),
• 5 that were on the 2009 unrestricted contract, bid on the new contract and lost (Account Control, ConServe, EOS-CCA, Pioneer, and Progressive),
• 4 that were on the 2009 unrestricted contract, bid on the new contract, received an award in December 2016, then lost the award in the corrective action announced in January 2018 (CBE, FMS, GC, TSI)
• 6 that had not been part of the 2009 contract but had bid on the original 2014 contract, were turned down in December 2016, and filed protests (ACSI, Allied, CCS, Delta, Gatestone, TGSLC). 

All complaints are currently sealed so the details are not available for review, but sources tell insideARM that the foundation of the complaints is that mistakes were made during the 2016 decision process which were evidently not corrected in the 2018 corrective action. In March 2017 insideARM reported that among the 47 protests filed with the Government Accounting Office, 29 (from 12 firms) were sustained and 5 (from 3 firms) were not decided.

Meanwhile, sources also tell insideARM that Patty Queen Harper, who has been the contracting officer on the PCA contract for several years, has left FSA. The reason for the departure is not known, but it is evidently common that contracting officers are changed out periodically, presumably in order to avoid the opportunity for bias.  

insideARM will continue to report on this case as it develops.

 

PHOENIX, Ariz. — BillingTree®, the leading payment technology provider, announced two new resources to support the industry-wide awareness initiative on risks associated with charging consumers convenience fees. The resources include a new white paper, A Convenient Truth: Convenience Fees and Compliance, and upcoming March 1st webinar, Why Convenience Fees Are Not A Great Solution in ARM – both of which address the impact, requirements and best practices surrounding convenience fees and compliance within the ARM industry.

The awareness initiative addresses very real and current concerns within the Accounts Receivables Management (ARM) community. The 2017 BillingTree ARM Operations and Technology Industry survey found one-third of respondents either still charge a convenience fee or were considering adopting the practice. This was down 20 percent from the prior year, and the second year in the survey’s six-year history the negative trend has continued. The new white paper aims to clarify common misconceptions and confusion about the application and collection of convenience fees. For a complimentary copy, please visit: https://start.mybillingtree.com/acton/media/15831/2018-convenience-fee-whitepaper—a-convenient-truth 

A corresponding panel-based webinar sponsored by BillingTree, Avoid Lawsuits: Why Convenience Fees are Not a Great Solution in ARM takes place on March 1st at 2:00pm ET. The panel will discuss the reasons behind the decline of convenience fee adoption and the potential litigation and regulatory risks associated with the model. 

The webinar panellists include:

• Claudia Callaway, Partner at Katten Law

• Christina Grigorian, Partner at Katten Law

• Rozanne Andersen, Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer, Ontario Systems

Webinar registration is now open free of charge at: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_So9Fd4PqQSeThX8Sb0tw7A  

About BillingTree 

BillingTree® is the leading provider of integrated payments solutions to the Healthcare, ARM, Property Management, B2B, and Financial Services industry verticals. Through its technology-enabled suite of products and services, BillingTree enables organizations to increase efficiency and decrease the costs of payment processing while adhering to compliance regulations. Leveraging more than a decade of market experience, BillingTree is dedicated to growing payments with technology through an integrated omni-channel offering, suite of proprietary products and value-added services, and a company-wide focus on delivering extraordinary customer service.