Archives for August 2019

It’s not every week that we see multiple decisions on the bona fide error defense from the courts, yet last week we saw three. Two were great, and one was scary. Below we’ll discuss each and how this may impact your business.

Decision 1: “Redundant” Policies and Procedures Save the Day

The first decision we’ll discuss is Williams v. Enhanced Recovery Co., No. 18-cv-03699 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019). In this case, ERC was unable to establish contact with the consumer despite mailing collection letters and several attempts to reach the consumer by phone. After being unable to connect with the consumer, ERC reported the consumer’s accounts to the credit bureaus. Next thing ERC knew, the consumer filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that, despite the consumer sending in a dispute letter, ERC continued to report the account without indicating the consumer disputed it. ERC, however, never received the consumer’s dispute letter. 

[article_ad]

The court punted the disputed issue of whether there was indeed a dispute letter sent and received. Instead, the court went straight to granting summary judgment in favor of ERC on the bona fide error defense. Even if the consumer sent a dispute letter, the court found that ERC’s “redundant” policies and procedures for mail processing, dispute handling, and credit reporting were more than reasonable to prevent the alleged error. 

Legal and compliance professionals in this industry understand the importance of policies and procedures. Those in business and operational roles might feel like their legal/compliance colleagues place too much emphasis on documenting processes. However, this case is a perfect example of these exact documented processes being the difference between potential class action liability and no liability.

Shelly Gensmer, ERC’s Vice President of Legal and Compliance, spoke with insideARM about this case:

ERC goes above and beyond to ensure its policies and procedures are written and followed such that its practices follow the law, but even more so, it puts in place additional means to catch any exceptions in processes. It even has measures in place to make sure the exceptions process goes the way it was designed. The judge’s order was strong in ERC’s favor and while we certainly take some level of pride in the success of this case, our takeaway is to continue to press the importance in all of our departments that policies and procedures must be reviewed and updated regularly.

Decision 2: The Obvious Saves the Day

The next decision we’ll discuss is Ketterman v. I.C. Systems, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-1136 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2019). In this case, the consumer sued I.C. Systems for allegedly attempting to collect a utility debt owed by his ex-wife, not him. The decision primarily discusses processing fees—the bona fide error defense came in at the end as an “even if” resolution. On that specific issue, the court found that I.C. Systems reasonably relied on the information provided by the creditor regarding the ownership of the debt to qualify it for the bona fide error defense. The facts presented also show that it was reasonable to believe the consumer owed the debt. The consumer’s testimony shows that he lived in the home while the debt accumulated, his name was on the account, and he paid the utility bill in the past.

Decision 3: Programmers Beware, Connecticut Thinks You Don’t Ever Make Mistakes 

The final decision—admittedly a scary one—is Garcia v. Law Offices of Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., No. 3:16-cv-791 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2019). The defendant here sent a collection letter that included a debt itemization similar to the one required by the New York Department of Financial Services and contemplated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for debt collection (NPRM). The current balance in the letter was different than the balance at charge off, but the itemization did not explain the difference. The itemization listed zeros for interest, fees, and payments since charge off. The letter omitted the consumer’s prior payment to the creditor, which was a typographical error.

The court found that the letter is confusing and misleading to the consumer about the amount he owed. However, even though the evidence shows this error was inadvertent, the court refused to find that the defendant was entitled to the bona fide error defense. The court found that the programmer’s mistake was not reasonable, considering the programmer’s experience and the letter’s short length. The court found that the defendant’s policies and procedures were not reasonable to prevent the mistake due to the error not being caught in testing despite the letter’s simplicity.

There are a few red flags in this decision. First, the court mistakenly thinks that the length and “simplicity” of a letter equates to the level of complexity in programming such letter, which is not the case. Second, the court thinks that experienced programmers are not human and are immune from inadvertent, typographical errors—the exact type of error contemplated by the bona fide error defense. Third, the court seems to oversimplify the letter testing process for a business that sends significant volumes of letters. 

The takeaways from Garcia are twofold. First, double-check the calculations in the debt itemization on letters. Second, said with tongue-in-cheek, programmers are beyond inadvertent human mistakes.

–

Want to keep up with other similar FDCPA cases as they come out? You can do so through iA’s Case Law Tracker, which allows you to conduct incisive and quick legal research in less time than it takes to pour your morning cup of coffee.

On Friday, August 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it has appointed Robert Cameron as the private education loan ombudsman. Cameron comes to the CFPB with experience as both a Staff Judge Advocate with the Pennsylvania Army National Guard as well as the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. 

The CFPB’s prior student loan ombudsman, Seth Frotman, resigned a year ago with a resignation letter accusing the Bureau—led by Former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney at the time—of failing to protect student loan borrowers. Following his resignation, Frotman launched the Student Borrower Protection Center. 

[article_ad]

Frotman’s resignation letter spurred Congressional inquiries into the matter. When the CFPB’s Director Kathleen Kraninger appeared before Congress in March of this year to provide the CFPB’s semi-annual report merely three months after her appointment, she was met with multiple questions about why the ombudsman role remained vacant.

Often organizations miss out on higher bad debt recoveries. The number one reason this happens is that they hold on to the debt for too long.

If you have been following this adventure you how important payment terms are to the process. It’s important in the onboarding process to start with the end in mind: setting yourself up for success by having mutually agreed payment terms, billing cycle, right party contact information, etc. However, even if you have done that all correctly from the start, some customers, unfortunately, aren’t able to pay for one reason or another. Here’s how to know when to cut bait and give it to the professionals.

Recommendations:

Don’t ignore the warning signs. Your customer isn’t paying within the agreed payment terms. Or maybe they were paying on time, but lately, they have been pushing farther and farther out.

• The customer is showing past due more often and/or farther past due than historically
• The customer hasn’t paid you in the last 45+ days
• The customer is 60+ day’s past due to their mutually agreed payment terms
• The customer made broken promises to pay
• The customer stopped taking your phone calls
• The customer’s emails are suddenly not going through, or the physical mailing address is returning mail to sender

[article_ad]

Communicating. Don’t be afraid to ask how things are going, especially if you noticed they are outside their normal payment cycle. Immediately offer alternative options instead of having to pay you the full past-due amount today. Set the expectation that it’s vitally important that they keep the communication lines open. If they have something come up, they need to call you. And always answer your calls. You have to be blunt and purposeful in your approach here, so they understand the commitment to you.

Alternative Options. While it’s so important that the customer is taking your calls, it’s equally important to give them attainable goals. If the customer feels that they have options, they are more likely to keep the lines of communication open. Alternative options might include things like offering the ability for the customer to make a small weekly payment towards the balance.

Offer the ability for the customer to continue doing business with you while making payments. The best way to accomplish this is to set the expectation they must remain current on the new invoices. Make the weekly payments smaller, so they can keep to the commitment.

A customer can always call you and make additional payments. However, it’s most important that they are sticking to their original commitment. Ask the customer what is the dollar amount they can afford to make weekly (hopefully automatically)? If the dollar amount is less than their normal spend, this is a sign that they can’t stay active as a customer right now. Give them an option to use alternative vendors until they can cover their average invoices plus the delinquent amount.

I’m sure Sales aren’t going to be the biggest fan of that message, but they will thank you in the long run. Especially if they have chargebacks or are commissioned on collected revenue. Lastly, customers appreciate that you recognize and don’t want to see them get to a place of debt they can’t repay. The snowball effect of continuing to let a customer who can’t pay continue billing can be detrimental.

No one wins, if the customer files bankruptcy or worse yet goes out of business.

Recommended exercise, look at your customers that haven’t made a payment to you in the last 45 days. These should be a top priority for collections.

Make your goal to be first in line not last. Don’t miss out on collecting because you waited too long to send an account.

How fast are you making this decision today? Do you have an easy process for your collector to recognize it’s time to cut bait? Are the collectors being trained to recognize the warning signs and make quicker decisions? Don’t let your customers get into the 90 and 120-day buckets. They should already be with your third party agency at that point. That is if you want an opportunity to recover that debt and fast. If you are using the steps outlined above, you should see higher recoveries.

If you need help finding a good 3rd-party collections agency, or you have questions on the performance of your existing partner, let me know. I’d be glad to recommend some great alternatives.

I hope you see purposeful decision-making throughout the steps mentioned above. If not, feel free to reach out to me via email at keich@theiainstitute.com. I would love to hear your thoughts. Even better, #ChimeIn on my personal LinkedIn page where this article will be shared and published for open comments.

I look forward to seeing you at our upcoming strategy workshop this December in Scottsdale, Arizona, and helping your organization maximize revenue without increasing your bad debt!

Tonawanda, N.Y.—Arbeit Software has integrated Arbeit Voice, the company’s cloud-based business phone system with Beam Software’s receivables management platform; BEAM.  The integration gives Beam Software’s customers the ability to generate more phone calls and remain compliant while doing so. 

BEAM’s click-to-dial integration with Arbeit Voice allows agents to simply click on a telephone number to automatically dial it.  BEAM will also disposition the account using predefined text to document the result of the call.  This provides consistency across the organization when it comes to documenting call history. It eliminates the chance of an agent misdial. It also allows agents to comply with the requirements surrounding the use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) according to the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order. 

[article_ad]

As new industry regulations are released, the importance of accuracy and compliance is intensified. In fact, the BCFP stated that new consumer protections will “overhaul the debt collection market by capping collector contact attempts and by helping to ensure that companies collect the correct debt.” 

“We’re always focusing on compliance and security since the climate for regulations is consistently changing.  Beam wants to make it easy for its customers to remain compliant.” said Thomas Mohr, Beam Software CEO. “We’re especially excited to be working with the bright development team at Arbeit.” 

The Arbeit Voice integration also provides agents with a screen pop on inbound telephone calls.  The BEAM collector screen automatically opens up when the agent answers an inbound call. 

“The integration is going to give agencies a huge productivity boost,” said Alex Villafranca, Arbeit Software CEO. “Pairing Beam’s innovative collection software alongside our TCPA compliance solution and office phone system is going to give agencies more ways to compliantly reach the consumer.”

About Arbeit Software

Arbeit Software is a leading contact solutions provider for call centers, debt collection agencies and small businesses. The suite of software was built by former debt collection agency owners and is designed to be efficient, easy to use and powerful.  In addition to a broadcast dialer, Arbeit offers a first of its kind, TCPA compliant manual dialing solution that removed the 3 second pause from the beginning of calls and allows agencies to make up to 250 manual calls per hour, per agent. Their business phone system Arbeit Voice is a perfect fit for small businesses who value cost efficiency and reliability. To see a demo or get a quote, visit www.arbeitsoftware.com. 

About Beam Software

Beam Software is a thought leader in collections and portfolio management technology and is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner.  Its development team has written software for Wall Street while its executives have been heavily involved in the debt industry for over 25 years.  The company’s innovative collection software suite is built from real industry experience using leading technologies.  For more information, visit www.beamsoftware.com or call 800-212-2326.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on the DCM Services website and is republished on insideARM with permission.

—

On Thursday, August 8, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (7th Cir.) published its long-awaited opinion in the matter of Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 17-3244 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019). For everyone in the ARM industry that is considering using email to deliver requisite 1692g disclosures, the decision is mandatory reading.

[article_ad]

I wrote an article about this case in October of 2017 when I was still at insideARM. At that time, I wrote: “On September 29, 2017, in a very interesting and timely Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, a district court in Indiana shot down a debt collector’s argument that it “sent” its validation notice to a consumer via email. The case is Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC (Case No. 1-15-cv-1922, U.S.D.C., Southern District of Indiana).”

Everyone in the ARM industry is talking about more “digital engagement” with consumers. Interactive web portals, emails, texts, chat are the obvious options, with email being the most interesting and potentially most beneficial. However, use of email, particularly for 1692g disclosures, is fraught with issues.

What the Lavallee case has taught us is this: sending an email that contains a hyperlink to the requisite disclosures is NOT a communication of the requisite disclosures under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The crux of the court’s opinion revolves around the definition of “communication,” particularly what constitutes a “communication” under the FDCPA. The court found that the emails were not “communications” since the substance of the email itself contained no disclosures or debt information. Nor did the hyperlink save the emails because it required the consumer to take multiple extra steps to obtain the information. (In fact, the court found that the consumer would have been required to take six (6) separate actions to read the notice.) The court noted:

To access the validation notice, Lavallee would have had to (1) click on the “View SecurePackage” hyperlink in the email; (2) check a box to sign for the “SecurePackage”; (3) click a link to open the “SecurePackage”; (4) click on the “Attachments” tab; (5) click on the attached .pdf file; and (6) view the .pdf with Adobe Acrobat or save it to her hard drive and then open it.

The CFPB’s NPRM is currently the hot topic in the ARM space. The NPRM is opening the door to more electronic communications, including emails. However, it is not clear at this time how “open” that door is going to be. Use of emails for initial communications is an interesting concept – but many questions remain to be answered.  Notably: How and when can the industry use emails for communication?  What will be required to use emails? Should “prior consent” be required, and how will we track consent and revocation? Finally, what in the world does the ESIGN Act have to do with this?

The NPRM’s comment period has been extended. Debt collectors and industry groups now have until September 18, 2019, to submit comments on this specific issue. 

It will be very interesting to see how email communications will be used in the future.  Among the open issues to be resolved is what options will pass muster when sending required disclosures to consumers via email if using Lavallee-like hyperlinks are not considered an appropriate communication?

TCPA litigation is big business. TCPA class lawyers make millions for the right case, and competition for good leads is fierce.

As I have said many times, however, TCPA class litigation is among the most complex and nuanced out there, and pitfalls abound both in pursuing and defending these actions. It is not just high-end TCPA defense lawyers that are in hot demand—top TCPA class lawyers find themselves wanted in more cases than they can safely take on.

[article_ad]

One class lawyer of relatively high repute is Keith Keogh. He’s had his run-ins with a couple of courts, such as the District of Minnesota finding his client had “distort[ed]” the evidentiary record in pursuing a certification motion, see Ung v. Universal Acceptance Corp. 249 F. Supp. 3d 985, n. 3 (D. Minn. 2017) and his engagement letter had to be modified before he could be approved as class counsel in Lanteri v. Credit Protection Asst. However, he has also successfully shepherded a number of TCPA class actions through to successful resolutions including arguably the best (from the plaintiff’s perspective) TCPA settlement in history. This makes his involvement in TCPA class suits valuable for would-be class representatives (and lawyers hoping to make a referral fee for his efforts) and somewhat foreboding for defense lawyers hoping to thwart certification in such actions.

But Keogh doesn’t just jump blindly into cases that are brought to him, as highlighted in the recent decision in Wexler v. AT&T Corp., 15-CV-686 (FB)(PK), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131869 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2019).

Wexler has an extremely interesting procedural history. The case was originally initiated as a putative class with Plaintiff’s husband serving as class counsel. That didn’t last long; however, as a class representative’s husband should not serve as class counsel owing to a potential conflict of interest issues. Nonetheless, when Mr. Wexler first withdrew as class counsel, he initially intended to seek recovery of fees on a quantum meruit theory. That created its own nest of issues that eventually resulted in him disclaiming any recovery to fees in a bid to avoid potential conflict issues.

In the meantime, however, Wexler was working behind the scene with Keogh on a potential engagement to bring him (Keogh) and another lawyer—Scott Owens—into the suit to serve as class counsel. According to the Court’s analysis, there had been “close business dealings between Mr. Wexler and [Keogh]” prior to this potential engagement, however.  Moreover, the original retainer agreement (apparently) did not mention a specific cut coming back to Mr. Wexler but did assign a 40% cut of a fee to Keogh. Although Plaintiff and other potential class counsel executed this retainer agreement, Keogh did not sign it. According to the Wexler decision, this was because Keogh wanted to see if the Defendant would successfully pursue arbitration before taking on representation in the case. Interesting, no?

Plaintiff’s apparent willingness to grant fees to Keogh despite his decision to wait-and-see on the arbitration issue would ultimately have a major impact on the court’s analysis of her adequacy to represent the class. In assessing the adequacy of Mrs. (Dr.) Wexler to continue representing the class as Plaintiff in 2019, the court noted that she had signed that retainer agreement in 2015 even though Keogh had not yet agreed to represent the class and despite the fact that she had never met him. As the court relates matters:

[t]he fact that Plaintiff would agree to give an interest in attorneys’ fees to someone who specifically declined to act as her counsel creates the appearance that Plaintiff had a conflict of interest, such that she would act to benefit those with financial dealings with her husband over members of the class.

The court was also concerned that the original retainer agreement did not make any mention of payment to Mr. Wexler for his fees in the case although he still expected to recover fees. As the Court views this matter, this fact alone demonstrates potential misdealing: “there is no indication of how he was to be paid…  [this] gap creates an appearance that Mr. Wexler had a spoken or unspoken side agreement with Mr. Giardina and Mr. Keogh.” This appearance was apparently heightened by deposition testimony in which “Mr. Wexler testified that he expected to get a ‘reasonable amount’ of fees, but that he was not included in the 2015 Retainer Agreement because ‘it would raise more problems than it would solve’ in light of the potential adequacy issues.”

A new retainer agreement was signed by Mrs. (Dr.) Wexler in 2016 that gave 50% of fees to Keogh and 50%  to another Plaintiff’s firm, but that new agreement clearly reserved to Mr. Wexler the ability to petition the court for a quantum meruit recovery.  As noted above, Mr. Wexler eventually disclaimed his right to any QM recovery in the case—apparently via a status report to the court in 2018—in a bid to salvage his wife’s adequacy to represent the class. But it was too late:

In light of Mr. Wexler’s close business relationships with Plaintiff’s current counsel, along with Plaintiff’s actions and inactions, the undersigned finds that a conflict of interest is apparent between Plaintiff and class counsel, such that divided loyalties impede her from monitoring counsel in this action.

Wow.

So there you have it TCPAWorld. A case that began with the potential class being represented by the husband of the class representative has hit the rocks of adequacy yet again. Keogh wanted to sit on the sidelines and await the outcome of the initial scuffle over arbitration but the class representative’s willingness to turn over fees to him despite his unwillingness to join the case—and apparently in blind reliance on her spouse’s advice—was deemed to create an appearance of impropriety thwarting adequacy given the “close business dealings” between her husband and Keogh.

I guess its a small TCPAWorld after all.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

Columbia, S.C.—Employees of AMCOL Systems, Inc., a nationally recognized leader in patient experience analytics and revenue cycle optimization, were moved to make a donation after recent mass shootings.  

“When we heard Ensemble in Mason, Ohio, had set up a fund for families of shooting victims, the employees here were quick to ask what we could do to help,” said Chip Hellmann Jr., President and CEO of AMCOL.  AMCOL works closely with Ensemble in the revenue cycle management industry.  “The empathy our team members have toward others is evident on a daily basis, but it is especially apparent in times of such human tragedy,” added Hellmann.

Employees have consistently come together to provide funds in times of crisis such as the wildfires in Tennessee, hurricanes in Texas, and flooding in their community. Animal shelters, military organizations, food banks, and children’s charities are just some of the frequent recipients of funds on a local level.

About AMCOL Systems, Inc.

Founded in 1976, AMCOL Systems is a leading provider of Self-Pay Collection, Bad Debt Recovery, and Insurance Claims Resolution services exclusively to the Healthcare Industry. AMCOL’s mission is to be trusted advisors who deliver tailored, patient-centered financial solutions to benefit their partners and their communities. ISO 27001 Certified for Information Security Management, and Quality certified through ACA International’s Professional Practices Management System, AMCOL is a leader in the healthcare receivables management industry and helps their clients accelerate cash flow and resolve patient accounts quickly and within all compliance standards. Additional information about the company can be found at amcolsystems.com.

[article_ad]

The question concerning the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) structure has found its way to the door of the United States Supreme Court yet again. This issue has been percolating for a couple of years. In January of this year, the Supreme Court denied a petition to review the matter in State National Bank of Big Spring, et al. v. Mnuchin. It appears that the Supreme Court will once again have to decide whether to hear the issue, as Seila Law LLC has filed a petition for writ of certiorari—which is fancy legalese for a request to have the Supreme Court hear the case—on June 28, 2019.

The petition stems from the CFPB’s investigation of Seila Law LLC, a debt resolution law firm. Seila Law objected to the CFPB’s civil investigation demand (CID) for information and documents about the firm, arguing that the CFPB was unconstitutionally structured. The CFPB petitioned a federal court for enforcement of the CID. The court found no issue with the CFPB’s structure. Seila Law appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision. Seila Law is now seeking the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter, arguing that “This case, which cleanly presents the question whether the CFPB is constitutional, is an ideal vehicle for the Court’s review.”

Similar to the arguments we’ve seen in prior cases addressing this issue, Seila Law questions “[w]hether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers.”

According to the case’s docket, the groups and organizations listed below filed amicus briefs supporting the Supreme Court’s review:  

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• The States of Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia
• The Cato Institute
• Separation of Powers Scholars
• Southeastern Legal Foundation and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
• Pacific Legal Foundation
• Landmark Legal Foundation

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

Not too long ago with PHH and State National Bank of Big Spring, financial services industry members were arguing that the CFPB was unconstitutional. Now, we have a debt resolution law firm—arguably the “other side of the aisle”—arguing the same thing. It’s interesting how this issue gets passed around like a hot potato. However, the question of constitutionality is an interesting one—at least for us legal eagles—and is best decided by the Supreme Court in its unique position as the final authority on constitutional matters.

As the TCPAWorld reported not long ago, a Magistrate Judge in South Florida recently held that consent obtained in a class action settlement was irrevocable—even against unnamed class members—under the doctrine of “Good Reyes.” Specifically, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case found that contractual consent is not revocable where it is a bargained-for term of a contract.

The Plaintiff challenged the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to the district court, and it did not go well. On Wednesday of this week, the district court overruled all objections and adopted the recommendation, dismissing the case. See Lucoff v. Navient Solutions, CASE NO. 18-CIV-60743-RAR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133577 (S.D. Fl. Aug. 7, 2019).

[article_ad]

In affirming the recommended dismissal, the district court explicitly stated it was “persuaded” by the Good Reyes decision that under common law, “Plaintiff’s consent was irrevocable, and any attempt to revoke his prior consent was ineffective…” In reaching this conclusion, the district court distinguished cases where the calls at issue were not within the scope of the consent provision as inapposite.

The district court also concluded that the Plaintiff had again consented by allowing the re-submission of his phone number to the servicer.

So there you go TCPAWorld—no revocation of contractual consent permitted in the Southern District of Florida.

Pass it on.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

COLLINGSWOOD, N.J.—MyGovWatch.com, the government contract intelligence website offering users more than just leads since 2008, has been tracking government purchasing activity covering two dozen unique debt classes ever since, including utility accounts from buyers like Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) and CPS Energy (CPS). These two large, metropolitan utility companies are actively seeking bids for collection services right now, with bids due later this month.

The website’s tracking and automation features let users access insider information showing how each utility selected vendors in the past for the same work. PGW last solicited bids in 2015, a year after CPS did the same. Documents available to users about past purchasing activities of these two utilities include:

• Detailed evaluation documents showing how and why each utility chose the selected firm(s) last time.
• Copies of winning proposals.
• Pricing of each bidder.
• Contracts signed by the vendors.

Site users also have access to the MyGovWatch.com Vendor Center, which enables nationwide searches of pricing more recently offered in response to utility contracts so bidders can anticipate current market pricing with a high degree of specificity and certainty.

People not yet familiar with the site and interested in these utility contracts can try it before paying for data access in one of two ways. Anyone can create a free account and receive a promotional code to access data about either the PGW or CPS solicitation. Qualifying companies can contact MyGovWatch.com and ask for a one-month trial contract to evaluate the site, with no payment due if trial users do not continue with site access after the trial.

The website additionally offers:

• Open procurement tracking services to ensure users hear about every addendum and procurement change in real-time.
• The ability to submit questions to buyers anonymously through the site.
• Contract award announcements as they become known.
• Search tools to let users research winning proposals by buyer type, region, and other attributes.
• Advanced notice of upcoming procurements to kick start the sales cycle.

To create your free account today, visit www.mygovwatch.com.

[article_ad]

About MyGovWatch.com

MyGovWatch.com, the government contract intelligence website offering users more than just leads for public sector procurements since 2008, lets users access unlimited “Premium” data in industries to include Debt Collection, Call Center, and EMS Billing.  Since its 2018 relaunch, the site now enables anyone to specify their particular interests from among ten top-level industries, from professional services to construction to finance and technology and beyond.  Users can set preferences to be notified about leads in nearly sixty sub-industries, such as collections, billing, systems development, business services, and others, covering every conceivable type of government purchase. Learn more at www.mygovwatch.com.