EXAMINATION OF THE
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’
FOOD SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC

CRIT LUALLEN
AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
www.auditor.ky.gov

209 ST CLAIR STREET
FRANKFORT, KY 40601-1817
TELEPHONE (502) 564-5481
FACSIMILE (502) 564-2912

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TRANSMITTAL LETTER ................................................................................................................ 2
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3
CONTRACT PROVISIONS ......................................................................................................... 4
COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 8
PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES ................................................................................................... 12
MASTER MENU .................................................................................................................... 17
USE OF LEFTOVERS ............................................................................................................. 22
INMATE GROWN FOOD ........................................................................................................ 25
MINIMUM MEAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 27
FOOD TEMPERATURES ......................................................................................................... 28
MEAL SERVICE LINE DELAYS AND FOOD SHORTAGES........................................................ 29
INMATE TRAINING PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 32
EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................................................... 33
MONITORING ....................................................................................................................... 34
NORTHPOINT TRAINING CENTER ......................................................................................... 40
CANTEENS ........................................................................................................................... 42
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 44
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ RESPONSE ............................................................................. 47
AUDITOR’S REPLY ..................................................................................................................... 53

CRIT
AUDITOR

OF

LUALLEN
PUBLIC

ACCOUNTS

October 7, 2010
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Honorable Greg Stumbo, Speaker of the House
Honorable David Williams, President of the Senate
Members of the House Judiciary Committee
J. Michael Brown, Secretary, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
LaDonna Thompson, Commissioner, Department of Corrections

RE: Department of Corrections - ARAMARK Food Services Contract
The Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) has completed its examination of the Department of
Corrections - ARAMARK Food Services Contract.
Examination procedures included reviewing the contract between the Department of
Corrections and ARAMARK; assessing compliance with the requirements of the contract;
analyzing detailed financial information, including contractor costs when possible; and
conducting interviews of Department of Corrections employees, ARAMARK employees,
inmates housed in state adult institutions, as well as other parties with expertise or professional
knowledge of food service matters relevant to the contract.
Findings in this report include:
• ARAMARK declined the auditors’ requests for certain cost records requested for its
examination;

209

ST.

•

The examination identified more than $36,000 in overpayments made by DOC to
ARAMARK due to billing errors and noncompliances with contract provisions, which
may exceed $130,000 when projected;

•

Auditors were unable to verify that ARAMARK consistently followed approved
recipes, used the proper quantity of ingredients, and met food safety standards
regarding food temperatures or use of leftovers due to poor documentation;

•

ARAMARK received almost $148,000 in inmate-grown food for nearly no cost, which
is not compliant with contract provisions; and

•

DOC does not appear to have a comprehensive contract monitoring process in place.

CLAIR

FRANKFORT,

KY

STREET

40601-

TELEPHONE

817

FACSIMILE

502.564.5841
502.564.2912
WWW.AUDITOR.KY .GOV

AN

EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

~

EMPLOYER

M /

F /

D

Page 2

Detailed findings and recommendations based on our examination are presented in this report
to assist the Kentucky General Assembly and the Department of Corrections in improving
procedures and internal controls.

Very truly yours,

Crit Luallen
Auditor of Public Accounts

Page 3
BACKGROUND
The Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC) entered into a
contract with ARAMARK Correctional Services, LLC
(ARAMARK) to provide food services for all state operated adult
prison institutions on November 10, 2004 with food service
operations transferring to ARAMARK on January 5, 2005. Prior
to entering into the food services contract with ARAMARK,
DOC operated food service at each institution.
DOC management indicated food service operations under the
department’s direction were inefficient and costly due to poor
procedures related to portion control and leftovers, lack of
expertise in food service operations, and lack of ability to
negotiate volume discounts on food products to the same extent
as large food service vendors. Food service operations were
privatized as a cost savings measure, but DOC indicated it also
provided stability by standardizing operations at each institution.
At that time, DOC estimated its daily food service cost to be
approximately $3.28 per inmate.
The contract with ARAMARK is based on providing three meals
- breakfast, lunch and dinner - with an average caloric intake of
2,800 calories per day. ARAMARK was awarded the contract in
FY 2005 with an initial daily rate of $2.34 per inmate per day
based on the daily morning inmate census at each institution.
Due to contract price adjustments during the contract period, the
contractual rate has increased to $2.63 per inmate per day in FY
2010. The contract does not stipulate a price-per-meal rate, so the
daily rate based on the inmate census is paid regardless of
whether the inmate actually participates in meal services.
The public interest in prison food services escalated due to
reports and testimony presented to the House Judiciary
Committee related to the August 2009 riot at Northpoint Training
Center. Those reports and testimony suggested problems related
to poor sanitation and pest control in the institutions’ kitchens,
dining halls and/or food storage areas, poor food quality,
inadequate food quantity, and reports of large scale food-related
illness outbreaks. As a result of those allegations, in February
2010, the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) received a
legislative request to audit the ARAMARK food services
contract. The APA also received information from Representative
Brent Yonts related to similar allegations he noted from
numerous sources.
The APA conducted the examination to review the contract for
compliance and address the validity of the allegations to the
extent possible. The auditors reviewed the contract to determine

Page 4
whether the contractual language was sufficient to protect the
Commonwealth’s interest through appropriate monitoring and
oversight provisions, including provisions that prohibit potential
conflicts of interest. Also, auditors identified the various
contractual requirements for food service operations, and then
gathered information to assess whether both ARAMARK and
DOC complied with the terms of the contract.
The procedures included on-site visits and observations, the
collection and review of an extensive amount of documentation
regarding payments, monitoring reports, food services production
reports, grievances, external reports and inspections. Dozens of
individuals were interviewed, including inmates, correction
officers, DOC central office management, Wardens, Deputy
Wardens, fiscal officers, and ARAMARK management, including
institution food service managers. Auditors obtained additional
feedback and information from other state governments, health
department inspectors, and other state agencies.
Furthermore, the auditors performed additional limited
procedures related to prison canteens to identify the existence of
possible conflicts of interest between the canteen operations and
food services, and to assess additional allegations raised during
the course of the examination related to possible unfair canteen
pricing policies. As a result of the canteen procedures, auditors
identified concerns related to the administration of canteen
profits, which were also addressed.
The report is divided into major topics relevant to the
examination. Because it is important to understand the context of
many of the findings, citations to the applicable contractual
provisions are presented for relevant topics, as well as
explanations of practices in place during the examination period
as needed. Recommendations are presented at the end of each
topical section.
CONTRACT
PROVISIONS
Auditors reviewed the ARAMARK contract to determine whether
it contained sufficient provisions to permit DOC to properly
monitor the vendor’s performance, rectify performance concerns,
institute penalties, authorize changes to food service operations
and menus, and protect the Commonwealth’s interest from
potential conflicts of interest.
The ARAMARK contract
contained numerous specifications to dictate the manner in which
food service operations were to be conducted, and contained
provisions to monitor and oversee the most significant of these
specifications. Subsequent sections of this report present details

Page 5
of specific weaknesses identified in the contract performance and
monitoring, which indicated that these provisions were not
always carried out. The objective of this section is to identify
whether the contract itself contains adequate provisions, and
assess whether the terms of the contract are reasonable in
comparison with other similar types of contracts.
Certain provisions of
the contract were
either never
implemented or were
modified over time in
operations without
modifying the contract.

In reviewing the contract provisions, auditors identified that some
specific operational provisions of the contract were not put into
place or were changed over the course of the contract period, but
the contract was not modified to reflect actual practice. Because
the examination is based largely on compliance with contractual
provisions, the failure to make these modifications may lead to
contract noncompliances due to the inability to verify whether
these changes were properly authorized and agreed to in advance
by both parties and in writing, as stipulated in the contract.
Section 40.050 of the contract states,
Pursuant to KRS 45A.210(1) and 200 KAR 5:311, no
modification or change of any provision in the Contract(s)
shall be made, or construed to have been made, unless such
modification is mutually agreed to in writing by the
Contractor(s) and the Commonwealth, and incorporated as a
written amendment to the Contract(s) and processed through
the Office of Material and Procurement Services and
approved by the Finance and Administration Cabinet prior to
the effective date of such modification or change pursuant to
KRS 45A.210(1) and 200 KAR 3:311. Memorandum of
understanding, written clarification, and/or correspondence
shall not be construed as amendments to the Contract(s).
The failure to follow this section of the contract leads to serious
concerns because the discrepancy between operational practices
and the contract language also lends itself to confusion and
misunderstandings among those impacted by this contract. Other
than DOC and ARAMARK management, other individuals may
not be aware of verbal agreements in place. The most significant
deviations between the contractual language and operational
practice are noted throughout the report as noncompliances,
including the following examples of provisions that were either
not implemented or subsequently modified:
• Section 30.120 - Daily Inmate Meal Count, as described
in the “Payment for Services” and “Meal Service Line
Delays” sections of this report;
• Section 30.090 - Food Supplies, as described in the
“Inmate Grown Food section of this report; and
• Section 30.070 - Other Meals served under the Master
Menu, as it relates to Religious/Alternate Entrees, as
described in the “Payment for Services” section of this
report.

Page 6
Contract provisions do
not reduce the risk for
conflicts of interest
between the food
service operations and
other related services.

Auditors also determined that the contract did not contain a
provision to discourage or prohibit conflicts of interest that could
lead to unsound or unethical business practices. During the
course of the examination, many concerns were expressed
regarding institutions in which ARAMARK held both the food
services contract and the institution’s canteen contract. The
allegations were that ARAMARK canteens charge higher prices
than other canteens, and also that ARAMARK has the ability to
intentionally reduce the food quality in the dining halls of these
institutions in order to increase canteen sales.
Although
examination procedures did not identify evidence of these
practices, the contract provisions do not reduce the potential for
such a conflict to exist.
ARAMARK holds the canteen contract in only two of the thirteen
adult institutions in the state, and ARAMARK’s canteen prices
do not appear to reflect price gouging when compared to nonARAMARK canteens. Furthermore, although varying meal
participation rates among the adult institutions were noted, there
did not appear to be a specific pattern indicating meal
participation at institutions in which ARAMARK held the
canteen contract was significantly less than other institutions.
ARAMARK has one person acting as regional manager for both
its food service operations and canteen operations in Kentucky.
Regardless of the separation of billing and staffing, if both
operations report to the same individual, there is an increased risk
that ARAMARK has the ability to use the food services
operations to benefit the canteen. Therefore, DOC should
consider strengthening its contract by addressing potential
conflicts of interest.
In the “Canteens” section of this report, canteen vendor
procurement practices are addressed, which may explain price
fluctuations among the various canteens, and also may result in
other inequities and conflicts at the institutional level.

Information obtained
from other states and
local governments
indicated potential
risks, the consideration
of which may assist in
strengthening the
state’s oversight.

To assist in the review of Kentucky’s food services contract with
ARAMARK, the bid files were reviewed to determine whether
the ARAMARK contract was awarded fairly and in accordance
with state requirements. No findings were identified as a result of
this review. Auditors also polled and interviewed key individuals
in other states and local governments regarding prison food
service operations and reviewed copies of relevant reports or
examinations conducted to gain an understanding of the industry
and common practices. These procedures provided additional
background in determining whether the food services contract
contained reasonable provisions compared to other operations in
the industry.

Page 7
Inquiries were made of surrounding states and non-contiguous
states with similar food services operations or with information
relevant to the examination of Kentucky’s food service
operations, as well as a sample of local governments in Kentucky
with large jail facilities. Not all entities contacted responded to
the auditors’ inquiries, but the information received was sufficient
to provide an expanded perspective on prison food service
operations, including information from states with current or
former ARAMARK food service contracts, entities utilizing other
vendors, and entities with self-operated food services. This
information was utilized to help identify potential risks associated
with the examination based on reports and experiences in other
states and local governments.
The information obtained from other states and local
governments indicated a wide range of food service contract
specifications, including varying daily caloric requirements
among states, and differing contract cost methodologies - such as
charge per meal served versus charge per daily inmate census.
Taking these differences into consideration, Kentucky’s contract
requirements did not appear to be out of line in comparison with
other states.
As noted above, however, the examination of other states also
assisted in assessing potential risks for Kentucky’s prison food
contract. During the review of those states with current or former
ARAMARK contracts, information was also gathered to assess
both positive aspects of ARAMARK operations and potential
risks based on other states’ experience with the company.
Positive feedback was received from entities that were very
satisfied with the services provided by ARAMARK. However,
problems or disputes relating to food services contracts involving
ARAMARK were also disclosed. The concerns raised in those
examinations or contract disputes related to overbilling practices
and menu changes. These risks also mirror concerns voiced
during the examination and, therefore, were important to take into
consideration to determine whether problems noted in other states
could assist in strengthening Kentucky’s contract oversight.
Although this information assists in identifying areas for
consideration, all findings noted within this report are directly
related to specific operations in Kentucky.

Page 8
Margarine and other
condiments are used to
meet the daily caloric
requirements of the
contract.

Numerous allegations were received regarding the use of
margarine and other condiments to increase the caloric count of
the menu inappropriately. The provisions of the contract call for
2,800 calories per day per person, and auditors noted the Master
Menu builds in up to 300 calories per day in margarine and other
condiments. DOC has approved the Master Menu, and, therefore,
acknowledges the inclusion of these items to meet the daily
caloric requirements. Also, through inquiry with other states and
local governments, auditors determined that although not all
governments permitted the use of margarine and condiments as
part of the daily caloric requirements, it does appear to be a
common practice.
Allegations were received indicating ARAMARK used margarine
to meet the minimum daily caloric requirement in instances in
which there was no logical use of the margarine in the meal, such
as when serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and soup. In
reviewing the production records and the Master Menu provided
for the time period tested, combinations that appear to be out of
line with industry practices were not identified, although it is
possible that meal substitutions could create this problem, which
is addressed in a separate section of this report.

Recommendations Contract Provisions

Based on our review of the contract provisions, we recommend
the following:
• DOC should review all contractual provisions, and modify
the contract to reflect actual practice to the extent the
practices are agreeable to both parties;
• DOC should consider adding a contractual provision
restricting or prohibiting conflicts of interest to the extent
feasible, or otherwise implement monitoring procedures to
reduce the potential for such conflicts to impact food
service operations; and
• In its annual contract renewal procedures, DOC should
consider requesting information from ARAMARK
regarding the results of internal or external audits or
examinations, including those conducted by other clients,
as it relates to correctional services. This information
should be used as a risk assessment tool in determining
what safeguards and assurances ARAMARK may put in
place for Kentucky to avoid any weaknesses noted in
those reports. These annual contract renewal procedures
should be added as a provision of the contract.

COST ANALYSIS
One objective of the examination was to analyze the cost of the
contract, not only for performance indicators, but also to help

Page 9
address certain concerns raised during the examination. As noted
above, Kentucky’s food services contract with ARAMARK
establishes a cost structure to pay a per diem for each inmate in
Kentucky’s adult institutions based on the daily prison census,
regardless of whether those inmates actually participate in the
meal service. Information obtained from other states identified
food service costs ranging from $2.35 per inmate to $3.29 per
inmate, with contracts containing varying cost structures and
provisions. Kentucky’s current per diem is $2.63 per inmate.
The ability to perform cost analysis using the various components
of cost, not just total dollars paid, should be an important
oversight objective of DOC because it provides a better
opportunity to identify the extent to which contract cost
adjustments are related to the cost of providing services. Also,
when government operations are privatized, this cost analysis is
important for monitoring to ensure the government is achieving
the cost objectives that initially led it to privatize the operations.
Although fair and reasonable profit considerations should also
come into play in DOC’s consideration of the cost components, it
should be equally fair and reasonable for DOC to know the actual
basis for the cost of the privatized operations. The privatization
of government functions should be approached with the same
level of accountability and transparency as if the government
operated the services itself.
It appears the food services contract with ARAMARK intends
this level of cost transparency in Section 40.195 - Disclosure of
Financial Records, which states,
The Contractor(s), as defined in KRS 45A.030(7), agrees that
the Contracting Agency, the Finance and Administration
Cabinet, the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the Legislative
Research
Commission,
or
their
duly
authorized
representatives, shall have access to any books, documents,
papers, records, or other evidence, which are directly pertinent
to the Contract(s) for the purpose of financial audit or
program review. Furthermore, any books documents, papers,
records, or other evidence provided to the Contracting Agency,
the Finance and Administrative Cabinet, the Auditor of Public
Accounts, or the Legislative Research Commission which are
directly pertinent to the Contract shall be subject to public
disclosure regardless of the proprietary nature of the
information, unless specific information is identified and
exempted and agreed to by the Secretary of the Finance and
Administration Cabinet as meeting the provisions of KRS
6.878(1))C) prior to the execution of the Contract….

Page 10
ARAMARK declined
the APA’s request for
direct cost information
for each institution and
therefore certain
analysis could not be
performed.

The APA requested cost data from ARAMARK, including the
direct cost of services (food costs, personnel costs, bonuses to
institution managers) by institution. This information would have
assisted us in:
• examining concerns about food service inequities among
the institutions;
• considering the information in conjunction with other data
in evaluating concerns regarding declining quality and
quantity of menu items;
• performing analysis to determine whether contract price
adjustments are justified by corresponding increases in
direct charges; and
• determining whether the vendor’s compensation policy
could potentially create unintended consequences by
encouraging cost cutting measures.
ARAMARK’s official response to the APA’s request indicated,
“The requested information exceeds both the auditor’s statutory
authority and ARAMARK’s contractual duty.” The basis for this
position was further described under the following points:
• “The information is not relevant to a review of
ARAMARK’s contract;”
• “The information sought is confidential and proprietary
and its disclosure would result in competitive injury to the
Commonwealth and ARAMARK;” and
• “Disclosure of the requested information would
contravene the purposes and policies of the Kentucky
Model Procurement Act.”
In its response, ARAMARK did offer to provide the APA
“information, by year, of its costs of goods, labor, direct
expenses, overhead and profits on an aggregate basis.” This
information was offered to the APA under the following
stipulations, “ARAMARK's offer is made on the condition that
the information not appear in the audit report or any other public
release, and that it be protected from disclosure under terms and
safeguards acceptable to ARAMARK. The offer is also
conditioned on the Auditor's agreement that the identified
information, together with that previously furnished, is sufficient
for the Auditor to complete her work with respect to information
being sought from ARAMARK.” The APA could not accept the
information under these conditions while providing the level of
accountability and transparency suitable for this examination,
and, therefore, declined the offer.
We believe the APA not only has the direct statutory authority to
audit food services as a program of prison institutions, but was
also given authority by the Legislature through its request to

Page 11
specifically examine the components of this contract.
ARAMARK contends that the cost components requested are not
“pertinent to the contract”, although it does not appear to be the
role of the vendor to identify information pertinent to a review or
examination of its services. Therefore, the failure to submit these
records may constitute a breach of contract, and we will refer this
matter to DOC and to Finance and Administration Cabinet for
consideration.
Changes to the Master
Menu were not
analyzed for cost
impact.

In analyzing cost data, the APA also reviewed the changes in the
contractual cost of services over the contract period. As stated in
the “Background” section of this report, ARAMARK’s contract
initially called for a cost of $2.34 per inmate per day, and as of
March 1, 2010, the rate was $2.63 per inmate per day. Cost price
adjustments are requested to coincide with the annual contract
renewal, and were established at 3% increase per year during
most of the contract period. The most recent contract renewal
increased the annual cost adjustment to 4% per year.
However, a concern related to contract price adjustments was
identified.
ARAMARK’s Master Menu was reviewed to
determine whether planned meals remained of consistent quantity
and quality throughout the contract period. There appeared to be
changes having a qualitative impact on the menu selection in one
year reviewed. Among the changes noted, whole chicken
quarters were removed from the menu and replaced with a
meatball sub entrée. The auditors inquired about the menu
changes with ARAMARK to try to obtain the impact on direct
cost of these changes. ARAMARK indicated cost impact could
not be reasonably estimated because there were more than 40
menu changes that year, although not all of those changes would
have a cost or qualitative impact.
The auditors also inquired about the cost of adding specific items
back to the menu, such as the chicken quarters that were removed
from the menu. ARAMARK indicated it would be a “meal
enhancement” to add the chicken quarters back to the menu in
place of a planned entrée. ARAMARK indicated it submitted
meal enhancement options to DOC for consideration. One of the
enhancement options included adding a chicken quarter in place
of a planned entrée once per month and a cheeseburger on a bun
in place of a planned entrée twice per month for a cost of an
additional $.06 per inmate per day, or $250,000 per year. The
treatment of the chicken quarters as an enhancement is
concerning, since it was removed from the menu and neither
ARAMARK nor DOC could provide information showing a
corresponding price decrease for the removal of the chicken
quarters from the menu.

Page 12
DOC indicated these menu changes were approved, and were
done so in lieu of the 3% contract price adjustment for that year.
However, DOC was unable to provide documentation showing
that the cost impact of these menu adjustments was provided by
ARAMARK or analyzed by DOC. Therefore, they could not
document the amount of the cost benefit provided to ARAMARK
for the exchange. Furthermore, the auditors later determined that
a 3% contract price increase was ultimately given to ARAMARK
later that same year, indicating that ARAMARK, in effect,
received two cost adjustments in the same year.
Recommendations Cost Analysis

We recommend the following actions resulting from cost analysis
procedures:
• DOC and the Finance and Administration Cabinet (FAC)
review the contractual provisions contained in Section
40.195 of the contract to determine whether ARAMARK is
in breach of contract for its failure to submit relevant
financial records to the APA.
• DOC and FAC modify Section 40.195 and 40.200 of the
contract to clarify any possible ambiguity in the language,
and to ensure that the vendor understands that information
pertinent to the contract will be determined by DOC, FAC,
APA, or the Legislative Research Commission.
• The dispute over financial records be considered by the
Legislature in determining whether modifications to
Kentucky law are needed to ensure the legislative and
executive branches have appropriate access to financial and
other information deemed appropriate, and expressly provide
the Auditor of Public Accounts the ability to deem what
information is “pertinent” to his or her audit objectives.
• DOC require a detailed cost analysis of changes to the
Master Menu when changes are submitted for approval.
Qualitative changes in the menu, in which lower cost options
have replaced higher cost menu options, should be
considered a cost adjustment and documented as such.
Changes in which higher cost options have been added to the
menu should, likewise, be taken into consideration when
analyzing ARAMARK’s request for a price increase.

PAYMENTS FOR
SERVICES
As part of the examination, payments made to ARAMARK in
connection with this contract were reviewed in order to determine
whether the charges were properly supported and made in
accordance with the terms of the contract. The contract stipulates
ARAMARK is to be paid a per diem rate for the inmate meals
based on the daily census at each institution, which is currently
$2.63 per inmate. Also, DOC pays for staff meals at a current

Page 13
rate of $.876 each. Additional rates are established for meal
enhancements for outside work detail and inmate kosher meals.
For billing purposes, ARAMARK submits a bill to its DOC
contact for review and approval. The DOC employee then
reviews the inmate census numbers, and works through any
disparities prior to submitting the invoice to DOC accounts for
payment. However, testing identified errors and inconsistencies in
the invoices resulting from noncompliance with contract language
and insufficient documentation to support the charges. Details of
the errors noted are presented below.
Discrepancies existed
between daily prison
census and the amount
ARAMARK invoiced for
inmate meals.

Contract Section 30.120 - Daily Inmate Meal Count states,
Each morning all institutions are required to account for all
inmates to the Central Office Classification Branch. This
count shall be the basis for invoicing inmate meals. The total
number of inmates actually present in each institution, daily
shall become the total number of meals invoices. At the end
of each month, these numbers will be totaled and the
Contractor(s) shall bill the Department for the total number
of inmates present by institution times per the per diem rates.
Although the Contractor(s) will submit one (1) total invoice
for the Department, each invoice shall be broken down by
institution….
Test results identified a disparity between the amount billed by
ARAMARK and the daily prison census. The test of invoices for
August 2007, 2008 and 2009 identified the following:
• The August 2007 invoice billed DOC a per diem for
382,273 inmates, but the official department census
showed the total number of inmates to be 379,182 for the
month, which is a difference of 3,091 inmates. This
difference resulted in an overbilling of $7,662.60.
• The August 2008 invoice billed DOC a per diem for
370,570 inmates, but the official department census
showed the total number of inmates to be 367,211 for the
month, in which is a difference of 3,359 inmates. This
difference resulted in an overbilling of $8,575.53.
• The August 2009 invoice billed DOC a per diem for
374,847 inmates, but the official department census
showed the total number of inmates to be 372,117 for the
month, in which is a difference of 2,730 inmates. This
difference resulted in an overbilling of $7,179.90.
Based on the errors noted in this sample, the amount overbilled
per year could be as much as $84,000 to $102,000. DOC
indicated the error in part may be due to its policy of recording
the weekend and holiday census for billing purposes. The daily
institution census taken on Friday is used for the Saturday and

Page 14
Sunday count for ARAMARK’s billing purposes. The Friday
census is also used for Monday’s counts in those weeks when a
holiday falls on Monday. DOC indicated this should closely
approximate the weekend census since there is very little change
in the prison populations during that time. DOC indicated this
policy developed because historically the institutions’ daily
census was manually taken and then phoned in to a central office
branch in Frankfort and the branch receiving those calls was
closed on weekends and holidays. Currently, the institutions’
census is taken electronically. It is not clear why the actual
census numbers are not obtained and used for billing purposes.
This explanation accounted for the errors, but the practice is still
out of line with the contract language requiring the bills be based
on the daily census.
In addition to the discrepancies in the weekend and holiday
census counts, additional billing errors related to estimates that
DOC provided to ARAMARK for billing were noted. The
patients at Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC)
utilize the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC)
institution for meal services. For billing purposes, DOC adds an
estimated 80 patients a day to the LLCC population count to
account for these additional meals, and ARAMARK’s bill is
based on this estimated count. In return KCPC pays DOC $3 per
patient based on its daily head count. In August 2009, LLCC’s
estimate resulted in 2,480 patients, and, therefore, ARAMARK
billed $6,522.40 based on this estimate. However, KCPC’s actual
count was 1,839 patients which resulted in an overpayment of
$1,685.83 to ARAMARK for August 2009 due to errors in
DOC’s estimates. The auditors were unable to determine that
DOC reconciles its estimates to actual numbers at a later date and
adjusts the payments to ARAMARK accordingly. Based on this
error, DOC could be overpaying ARAMARK as much as $20,000
per year.
Testing also identified instances between August 2007 and
August 2009 in which DOC was adding inmates to the daily
census at one facility. The Warden at one facility authorized
“double meals” for 20 outside detail inmates. Rather than
working out a billing arrangement for meal enhancements, DOC
added 20 inmates to the daily census. Based on inquiry with
DOC, these 20 inmates were receiving double meals for all three
meal services, and therefore there is likely minimal impact on
cost. However, the meal enhancement was not in writing, and
artificially changing the census is a poor control which increases
the risks of errors. According to DOC, this practice has ceased.

Page 15
Supporting
documentation for
charges related to staff
meals was inadequate,
and instances of billing
errors related to staff
meals were noted.

During the examination, it appeared the contract provisions in
Section 30.070 - Other Meals served under the Master Menu were
not consistently followed. The contract states,
Staff/Guest Meals
The Contractor(s) shall ensure that one (1) meal per shift is
provided for the facility’s staff at no charge [to the staff
person]. Staff shall eat the same foods as served on the inmate
Master Menu. All staff shall sign for meals. The contractor(s)
shall use the completed sign in sheets for the purpose of
invoicing staff meals to the Department….
Audit procedures indicated that not all institutions utilize a signin sheet for the staff meals, which makes it difficult to verify the
accuracy of meals provided to staff in these institutions.
Although the staff meals are currently charged at a rate of only
$.876 each, some institutions are being billed for more than 1,000
staff meals per month, and therefore it is important to have
procedures in place to support the associated costs.
A sample of available staff meal sign-in sheets were tested for
four institutions. The test identified discrepancies between the
staff meal sign-in sheets and the amount ARAMARK charged for
staff meals. In investigating these differences, one Warden
indicated that the number of staff meals billed by ARAMARK
was not verified but only reviewed for consistency from month to
month. The test identified one example in which ARAMARK
billed 890 staff meals for the month, but documentation indicated
only 527 staff members signed the log. In this example, the
auditors noted the log for one day was missing; however, it is not
likely that the missing day would account for the 363 meal
discrepancy. Furthermore, a DOC employee indicated that
procedures were in place at his/her institution for reviewing
ARAMARK charges, and an error of more than 500 staff meals
was noted. The employee was able to resolve the discrepancy
with ARAMARK, but this highlights the need for institutions to
implement similar controls to thoroughly review the billing
statements.

As of September 2008, DOC began providing a kosher alternative
Supporting evidence did
not exist for kosher meals for inmates of the Jewish faith, and this meal is billed at a higher
rate than the standard per diem for inmate meals. Kosher meals
billed at a higher rate.
are billed at a rate of $4.683 per inmate rather than the standard
$2.63 per diem rate. In preparing the invoice for kosher meals,
ARAMARK backs out participating Jewish inmates from the
respective institutional census count, and adds the actual number
of kosher meals served at the higher rate. The auditors tested
billing for kosher meals served at two institutions for August
2009, and noted ARAMARK provided kosher meals for 955

Page 16
inmates for these institutions.
However, DOC did not have
supporting documentation to verify the number of inmates
invoiced at the higher kosher rate for this month. The difference
between the kosher and standard inmate per diem for this month
would be approximately $1,960.62.
Because of the rate
difference, there is a higher risk of billing errors related to these
types of meals, and, therefore, DOC should have appropriate
controls in place to reduce those risks.
Religious holiday meals
are not provided in
accordance with the
contract.

Contract section 30.070 states,
Religious/Alternate Entrees The Contractor(s) shall provide alternate (meatless) entrees as
required by the Master Menu. The alternate (meatless) entree
is designed to provide meal options for inmates who choose to
abstain from pork and/or meat in their diets. Examples of
alternative choices are peanut butter, cheese, dried beans, or
other vegetarian entrees. Inmates shall be given a choice of the
regular, pork free or alternate (meatless) entree. The protein
alternative shall meet the requirement for both the alternative
and pork free menu component.
In addition, during Ramadan, two (2) enhanced pork free
meals shall be served before sunrise and after sunset. On all
menus, entrees or products containing pork shall be indicated
as such on the main line cafeteria style feeding. Currently pork
free signs or pork product signs are in use at all facilities.
During the Lenten season at least one (1) meatless meal shall
be served on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and each Friday
of Lent. This meatless meal may be served as the alternative
choice. There may be other religious dietary observances that
shall be handled on an individual basis.
Testing indicated that DOC began paying an additional cost to
ARAMARK for Ramadan meals starting in 2007 and Passover
meals beginning in 2008. DOC has paid a total of $9,290.09 for
providing these meals, although it appears they are included as
part of the contract cost. Typically, the contract identifies
provisions for additional costs when intended, but this section of
the contract does not contain such provisions, indicating that
DOC either overpaid for these meals or modified the provisions
of the contract without putting the changes in writing.

Recommendations Payment for Services

We recommend the following in respect to billing procedures:
• DOC should develop a plan to review bills submitted by
ARAMARK for each institution over the previous year to
identify any errors or inconsistencies with supporting
documentation or contractual requirements. If this review
identifies overbilling, DOC should consider extending its

Page 17

•

•

review into earlier periods.
DOC should request
reimbursement or credit from the vendor for amounts
overbilled, and should consider whether a penalty should
be applied.
DOC should improve its procedures for documenting the
source information for ARAMARK charges. These
procedures
should
include
standardizing
the
documentation for staff meals eaten, and for ensuring the
official daily census is used for billing purposes. DOC
should also consider billing errors made by ARAMARK a
serious contractual noncompliance and implement
corrective action with the vendor.
DOC should review the contract provisions related to
religious and holiday meals, and update those provisions
to reflect current practice. If DOC’s intent was for
ARAMARK to provide religious and holiday meals as
part of its standard contract, DOC should consider
requesting reimbursement for payments made to date for
these meals.

MASTER MENU
ARAMARK developed the Master Menu using an internally
developed food services program called PRIMA (Production,
Recipes, Inventory, and Menu Analysis). The system is used to
generate the menu to the contract specifications, and also
generates the recipes and nutritional analysis for the meals
developed. The auditors inquired as to whether this system is
independently audited or verified. ARAMARK was not able to
confirm an independent verification of this system, but did
indicate it has been accepted for use in certain federal food
programs.
The contract contains several provisions related to the Master
Menu and the related recipes, including review and approval of
the menu, substitutions of items on the menu, and modifications
of the recipe. These provisions were tested by examining a
sample of ARAMARK’s meal production records at three
different facilities, as well as by reviewing DOC meal reports.
These tests covered a total of 534 meals for the three institutions.
ARAMARK’s meal production records included:
• production sheets, which document information related to the
estimated number of inmates expected to participate in the
meal, the approximate number of servings made and served,
food temperatures throughout the meal service, and
comments from ARAMARK employees regarding
significant matters from the meal service such as line delays,
food shortages, etc.;

Page 18

•
•
•
•

recipes used during the meal;
product pull sheets, which documents the amounts of the
ingredients needed from the storage areas to prepare the
recipes based on the estimated participant level;
inventory reports; and
other information attached to the production records, such as
leftover tags or notes.

The results of the examination identified that certain provisions in
Section 30.060 - Master Menu were not consistently followed.
The weaknesses noted are described below.
Instances in which
substitutions are not
approved in advance
as required by the
contract were noted.

As it relates to reporting, Section 30.060 states,
The Contractor(s) shall comply with the Master Menu, as
written, in all twelve (12) institutions [sic]. Any substitutions
or changes shall be documented and submitted to the
Contract Manager in the monthly report. Monthly reports
shall be reviewed for unapproved substitutions.
Documentation and inquiries with DOC officers and inmates
indicated menu substitutions were common occurrences at the
institutions. Substitutions indicate instances in which an item on
the menu was replaced by another item either during the entire
meal or for part of the meal when there were shortages in the
availability of the original menu item or items. Contract
provisions require preapproval of menu substitutions. DOC
indicated it maintains a list of preapproved menu substitutions it
considers acceptable replacements to facilitate and expedite the
approval process, which includes menu items in the same
category (for example, vegetable for vegetable, dessert for
dessert, etc.).
Testing indicated 142 meals out of the 534 meals in which
production records identified a food shortage and/or substitution.
Copies of the monthly reports mentioned in Section 30.060 of the
contract were requested for review to determine whether DOC
obtained these reports monthly and that it was aware of the
various menu substitutions. DOC indicated that the monthly
substitution reports were not obtained from the institutions.
Written notification to and/or approval by DOC was not
identified for any of the 142 meals in which food shortages and/or
substitutions were noted. Although auditors recognize it is not
always feasible to receive prior authorization for meal
substitutions caused by food shortages during actual meal
production, it is important for those substitutions to follow
DOC’s preapproved substitution list and for those instances to be
documented and reported for DOC’s review in the monthly report

Page 19
called for by the contract in order to provide the department
appropriate monitoring opportunities. Contract Section 30.100 Menu Modifications and Substitutions indicates that unauthorized
exceptions to the master menu may be considered a breach of
contract, and that the approval or disapproval of substitutions for
extenuating circumstances will be provided by the department’s
contract manager. Due to the lack of adequate documentation or
reports specified in Section 30.060 as noted above, auditors were
unable to verify that the substitutions were approved.
DOC indicated it believes it is routinely notified of substitutions
and has an opportunity to approve them, but documentation of
these communications was not available. Also, as noted above,
DOC indicated it permits substitutions without approval if they
were in the same category and has provided ARAMARK with a
list of what it considers to be acceptable substitutions. However,
auditors identified instances in which substitutions were made
with foods that were not in the same category, but documentation
of DOC’s preapproval of these items was not provided.
Examples of these substitutions include:
• Four pieces of brownie substituted for a meat;
• Three pieces of cake substituted for two hotdogs;
• Cheese substituted for coney sauce; and
• Watermelon substituted for broccoli and for a dessert.
These types of substitutions draw into question whether
ARAMARK is violating the provisions of its contract to adhere to
the Master Menu, and certain substitution choices also raise
questions whether it is meeting the minimum daily caloric intake
identified in the contract for the individuals impacted.
ARAMARK’s
production and
inventory records may
indicate approved
recipes were not
followed, or proper
quantities of
ingredients were not
used.

During the examination, allegations were also received indicating
that certain items on the menu were watered down or that items
were routinely missing or cut out of recipes. As it relates to menu
modifications, the contract Section 30.060 states,
The Contractor(s) shall comply with the Master Menu without
variations except where approved by the Contract Manager
or designee. Compliance with the Master Menu shall include
correct portions, correct utilization of approved recipes and
use of proper ingredients. …
Production records were tested in an attempt to reconcile pull
sheets to inventory usage reports to verify that sufficient quantities
of food product were used. As noted above, pull sheets are
developed in PRIMA to identify the amount of each ingredient
needed from the storage areas to prepare the recipes for each meal.
Significant variances were identified between the pull sheets and
inventory records that document the amount of product used

Page 20
during the week. In a majority of the instances, the inventory
records showed less product was used than the pull sheets indicate
was needed for the recipes.
Testing identified instances in which products listed on the pull
sheet were marked out, indicating they were not pulled for use in
the meal preparation. Also, pull sheets contained instances in
which the quantity of the food product called for was reduced, and
had instances in which the pull sheets were not available for
review. The auditors noted numerous instances in which spices
were left out of recipes, and even more serious instances in which
flour, beef base, and bulk food ingredients called for in the recipe
were dramatically reduced or omitted. Just a few of the many
examples of bulk ingredients reduced from what was called for in
the recipe include:
• one instance in which the recipe called for 150lbs of
beans, but only 100lbs were used;
• one instance in which the recipe called for 181.25 lbs of
rotini pasta, but only 138 lbs were used;
• one instance in which the amount of rice was reduced
from 197.5 lbs to 149 lbs; and
• one instance in which the amount of potatoes was reduced
from 152.75 lbs to 116 lbs.
Auditors did not note the approval of any recipe modifications
identified. In following up with DOC regarding whether the recipe
modifications were approved, it indicated that since spices did not
have a nutritional value, they were not concerned about those
modifications. No explanation was provided for any other recipe
modification.
ARAMARK indicated that discrepancies between the pull sheets
and the inventory records may be attributed to several possible
contributing factors, such as undocumented use of leftovers,
failure to use spices called for in the recipe due to the institution’s
policy, etc. Although ARAMARK’s explanation may be accurate,
production records did not document the use of leftovers for the
meals in which discrepancies were identified. Therefore, based on
these issues, we were unable to rely on the pull sheets and
inventory records to verify the amount of food product used in
meal preparation followed the recipes.
Portion sizes are
difficult for ARAMARK
to standardize.

Auditors noted concerns indicating that ARAMARK was not
serving the appropriate portions of items listed on the Master
Menu. During site visits to institutions and in discussions with
ARAMARK employees, auditors noted one operational practice
that may explain portion disparities. Portions served in the food
service lines are based on volume measure utensils (ladles,

Page 21
scoops and spoons), although many items on the Master Menu are
expressed in weight (ounces). ARAMARK indicated this poses a
challenge because they then have to weigh the portion prior to the
meal service to determine how much of the volume measure is
needed to arrive at the proper weight, and then train food service
line workers on the appropriate serving size. For instance, for an
8 ounce portion of a casserole, they may instruct line workers to
use a heaping scoop of a 4 or 6 ounce volume measure. This
method is subjective and subject to error. Meal evaluation reports
also identified inconsistent portions, even from one tray to the
next, which further supports this concern. Because of this
operational practice, ARAMARK appears to have difficulty
standardizing serving sizes for some items.
ARAMARK indicated that it recognizes this issue, and is moving
toward revising the Master Menu to list volume-based portions
when possible to avoid these types of discrepancies. DOC
indicated that this was also a problem when the department
operated food services, but that it tended to err on the side of
over-serving rather than under-serving.
Recommendations Master Menu

We recommend the following in respect to Master Menu
provisions of the contract:
• DOC should improve its document retention for menu
modifications, substitutions and other matters impacting
the Master Menu.
• DOC should develop a standard monthly report for each
institution regarding its food services. The report should
include a log of menu modifications or food shortages.
As stipulated in the contract, these reports should be
reviewed monthly to ensure all modifications and
substitutions are reasonable and are approved. DOC
should also develop procedures to implement the fine for
unapproved substitutions stipulated in the contract
(Section 30.060).
• DOC should include a provision in its future food services
contract to require the vendor to reconcile its inventory
records to meal preparation reports to improve
documentation regarding the sufficiency of inventory
purchases. This type of reconciliation should identify the
details of any discrepancies, such as use of leftovers,
recipe modifications, etc.
• DOC should work with ARAMARK to resolve
discrepancies between portion sizes and serving utensils,
which may necessitate modifying the Master Menu as
recommended by ARAMARK or by changing food
service procedures for items served by weight.

Page 22
USE OF LEFTOVERS
Allegations were also received during the examination regarding
the use and recycling of leftovers in meal production. The use of
leftovers is a common industry practice, and can be an effective
method for reducing overall cost. However, proper handling of
leftovers is critical to avoid potential health hazards.
The reuse of food is permissible by food safety standards when
appropriate precautions are taken. Kentucky’s Food Code
establishes food safety standards for use in food service
establishments in the Commonwealth.
These standards
incorporate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food
Code by reference, which promulgates food safety requirements,
including those related to the reuse of food. Also, the FDA Food
Code recommends food safety processes contained in Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) guidelines.
HACCP processes are national guidelines for the use of food
products from harvest to consumption. ARAMARK’s policies
indicates it follows HACCP guidelines.
To address the concerns raised regarding the use of leftovers,
ARAMARK’s meal production records were reviewed to
determine whether they complied with provisions of the contract
regarding leftovers, with HACCP guidelines adopted in its
policies, and that documentation was sufficient to identify the
source and use of leftovers in meal production.
The contract does not
contain specific
requirements regarding
the use of leftovers.

Requirements regarding the use of leftovers are not directly
specified in the contract. DOC management stated when it ran its
own food services, its practice in most institutions was to make
the previous day’s leftovers a self service item to inmates. DOC
indicated this provided some element of choice to the inmates,
and, therefore, they included this as an option in the contract
under Section 30.000, which states,
Although portion sizes are listed on the menus, self-serve food
choices of certain food items (vegetables, salads) are
encouraged whenever possible. The self-serve items could
include at a minimum, leftovers from a previous meal, farm or
commodity products that may be received in large quantities,
or less popular vegetables. This allows an individual inmate to
make choices as well as giving the inmate some control of his
own dietary health.
At some point during the contract period, leftover practices
changed and DOC permitted ARAMARK to utilize leftovers in
its meal preparation. ARAMARK has policies regarding the use
of leftovers, which appear to be acceptable under HACCP
guidelines. For instance, ARAMARK’s policies stipulate that

Page 23
leftovers returned to the cooler be used within 72 hours, and
leftovers returned to the freezer be used within 28 days.
However, this policy was not documented in the contract.
Additional concerns related to the documentation of leftovers are
detailed below.
Documentation
indicating the source
and use of leftovers is
inadequate.

Deficiencies were identified in documentation related to the
source, use and storage of leftovers. ARAMARK indicated that
production records document the use of leftovers in the meal
production by having a leftover tag attached to the meal’s
production sheet. However, weaknesses were noted with the tags
themselves in that they did not contain certain information that
would identify the source of the leftovers. Weaknesses were also
noted in regards to the improper use of the tags.

•

•

•

Instances in which the leftover tags utilized did not indicate the
source of the leftovers by date or meal were identified. The
tags indicated the meal for which the leftovers could be used,
but no source information identifying the date of the leftovers.
This information helps ensure that ARAMARK’s and HACCP
requirements regarding the acceptable timeframe for the use of
leftovers are followed. The format of leftover tags changed
during the timeframe covered by our examination, and the
current format of the leftover tags utilized by ARAMARK
appear to require this information.
Leftover tags are generic slips of paper, which are easily
replicable, do not contain control numbers, and are not logged.
The use of control numbers on tags improves the validity of the
documentation because it reduces the risk that the tags could
be changed or replaced without detection. Also, control
numbers help identify the timeframe of leftovers if tags are
lost, which appears to be a common occurrence based on the
examination of production records.
Numerous instances in which the leftover tags were not
attached to meal production sheets were noted. The production
sheets do not identify when leftovers were used in the meal
preparation. ARAMARK indicates that when leftovers are
used, the leftover tags are attached to that meal’s production
sheet, so when the tags are not attached to the records it is
difficult to determine what leftovers, if any, were used.

The auditors identified instances in which leftovers were likely
used but not documented because in some instances the amount
of product pulled from storage for meal preparation was less than
required by the recipe.
ARAMARK suggested these
discrepancies in the pull sheets may be due to the usage of
leftovers in the meal preparation. Also, although the production
records do not have specific spaces to record the use of leftovers,

Page 24
they do document when food was returned to dry storage,
returned to the cooler, or returned to the freezer, thereby
indicating the existence of leftovers available for use.
Because food returned to the cooler is required to be used within
72 hours, leftover tags are expected to be seen on production
sheets within that timeframe for refrigerated items, especially
when pull sheets show a reduction in the amount of product
pulled. Production records identify items such as casseroles,
soups, entrees, side dishes, and biscuits were returned to the
cooler for later use, but for which leftover tags did not exist.
Disposal logs were not maintained so there is no record indicating
what happened to the leftovers returned to the cooler.
ARAMARK indicated the Master Menu is set up to facilitate the
use of leftovers within a 72 hour time period. Without
appropriate documentation of the source, use or disposal of the
leftovers, it is difficult to detect when leftovers are at risk of
being recycled longer than 72 hours.
Auditors observed
leftovers in food
storage areas past the
acceptable HACCP
timeframes.

During site visits to institution kitchens, the auditors noted
several leftover items in the refrigerator and freezer areas with
dates outside the acceptable timeframes. As noted above,
leftovers returned to the refrigerator must be used within 72 hours
and leftovers returned to the freezer must be used within 28 days
per ARAMARK’s policies. However, we identified several
leftovers, such as broccoli, meatloaf, cheese pizza, and turkey
bologna stored in refrigerators with dates more than two months
old. The auditors also observed in May 2010, 10 cases of beef
livers in a refrigerator dated “12-02,” although beef livers had not
been on the Master Menu since 2007. Although the auditor did
not determine that these leftovers were used in meal production,
leaving leftovers in food storage areas past their acceptable usage
dates increases the risk that the leftovers could be inadvertently
used in the meal preparation. This is especially risky since
leftover tags can easily be lost or removed.

Production records
indicate instances in
which leftovers were
returned to the cooler
or freezer at
unacceptable
temperatures.

Food safety standards indicate that leftover hot foods must be
brought to temperatures at or below 41 degrees within a four hour
timeframe, and before returning the items to the cooling area or
freezer. Cooling leftovers prior to placing them in a refrigerator
or freezer area is a food safety concern because warm food placed
in a cooler or freezer heats up the temperature in the cooling areas
and, therefore, could impact the temperatures of other food stored
in those areas. Production records tested indicated instances in
which the final temperatures of leftovers returned to the cooler or
freezer were at temperatures higher than is deemed to be
acceptable. These records indicated instances with some items
having final temperatures as high as 70 degrees. Although 70

Page 25
degrees is an ARAMARK goal at the 2-hour cooling mark, the
food should continue to be cooled until it reaches 41 degrees prior
to placing the item in the cooling area. If the 41 degree target is
not met within four hours, the leftovers should be discarded.
Recommendations Use of Leftovers

We recommend the following related to the use of leftovers in the
prison food services:
• DOC should establish specific policies regarding the use
of leftovers, and incorporate those policies as a provision
of its food services contract.
• DOC should require ARAMARK to maintain a log of
leftovers to identify the source of the leftovers, and the
use or disposition of them. Leftover tags should crossreference to this log by the use of control numbers or
other methodology.
• DOC should require ARAMARK to document the use of
leftovers (quantity, tag control number, etc.) on its meal
production records so the use of leftovers in the meal
preparation is evident and less likely to get lost or
misplaced.
• DOC should include food storage areas in its weekly
sanitation inspections, and require that ARAMARK throw
out any unlabeled or expired leftovers. These inspections
should include a scan of production records for
temperatures of food on service lines, as well as those
returned to refrigerator or cooling areas. Since DOC
employees are not certified sanitation inspectors,
inspection sheets should be sufficiently detailed to assist
in identifying the proper temperatures.

INMATE GROWN
FOOD
DOC provided over
115,000 pounds of
produce to ARAMARK
at almost no charge.

The results of the examination identified that the contract
provisions in Section 30.090 - Food Supplies related to inmate
grown food were not followed. The contract states,
The Contractor(s) is encouraged to purchase and use inmate
grown produce from the department upon notification of
availability from the Farm’s Program. The produce shall be
offered at fair market value. In the event the Contractor(s) can
document lower prices from other wholesale sources, the
Department shall have the option of reducing the price of the
produce for the Contractor(s), prior to the Contractor(s)
purchasing from another source. The value of any Department
farm produce utilized shall be listed on the invoice, as a
separate line item, as a credit.
Upon initial inquiry into inmate grown food, DOC management
indicated the inmate food program is in decline and isn’t utilized

Page 26
much by ARAMARK.
Additionally, upon inquiry with
ARAMARK, it indicated that it does not use much of the inmate
grown food in actual meal production, and when it does it is
generally an additional item added to the menu. Auditors
obtained the 2009 farm report identifying the source and use of
inmate grown produce, and identified almost 115,000 pounds of
produce was provided to ARAMARK for the year between May
2009 and August 2009. Examples of the amounts of specific
vegetables provided to ARAMARK include over 37,000 pounds
of cabbage and 27,000 pounds of squash.
Furthermore,
production records tested indicate that inmate grown food was
utilized as a menu substitution for another menu item rather than
as an additional menu item.
Based on the farm report, a review of invoices, and receipts in the
state’s financial accounting system, eMARS, ARAMARK’s total
payment was $531 for this produce. Using UK’s Department of
Agriculture’s guide for produce prices in Kentucky, the auditors
were able to estimate the fair value of some specific types of
produce. The fair value of certain types of produce could not be
readily estimated, due to the farm report having a different basis
of reporting the produce than the price guide. For instance, the
price guide may report the estimated cost of produce in quarts,
whereas the DOC farm report identifies the produce in pounds.
Those items with a determinable fair market value amounted to
almost $148,000 of produce provided to ARAMARK between
May 2009 and August 2009. The total value of all produce
provided would likely be much higher. Although the contract
stipulates that DOC may offer produce at cost lower than fair
value when ARAMARK can document a lower wholesale price
available, the intent of the contract does not appear to offer the
produce nearly free of charge.
It should be noted that by all accounts, inmate grown produce is
very well received by inmates and DOC employees, and this is
not an attempt to discourage the practice of using inmate grown
produce in food service operations. Also, DOC management
clearly identified other benefits of the inmate farm program as a
way to assist in rehabilitation efforts. This finding relates to the
disparity between contract language and actual billing practice,
and is not critical of the obvious rehabilitation benefits of the
program itself. However, the contract appears to intend for any
financial benefit of the program to be used to assist DOC, not to
further enhance profits of the vendor.
Recommendations Inmate Grown Food

We recommend DOC re-examine its policy related to the use of
inmate grown food. The farm program is an important inmate
program but DOC should receive the monetary benefit resulting

Page 27
from the use of the inmate grown food instead of the vendor. If
DOC believes that charging fair value or a negotiated rate to its
food services is not feasible, it should modify the contract to
reflect actual practice.
MINIMUM MEAL
SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS
The examination identified that the contract provisions in Section
Exceptions with the
30.020 - Minimum Meal Service Requirements were not always
minimum meal service
requirements stipulated in followed. The contract states,
… Policy dictates that three (3) meals per day shall be served
the contract were
with a minimum of two (2) hot meals and not more than
identified.
fourteen (14) hours between the evening meal and the
following’s day breakfast meal…
Three institutions were identified for which the meal times
exceeded fourteen (14) hours between the evening meal and the
following’s day breakfast meal. For example, one institution was
noted as starting its dinner meal at 3:15pm, and starting breakfast
at 6:00am the following morning, which exceeds the 14 hour
minimum meal requirement by 45 minutes. The contract
indicates the meal times are established by DOC, stating:
The Contractor(s) shall ensure that meals are served within the
time ranges as determined by the Warden at each institution.
Auditors also noted complaints from inmates during the
examination about feelings of hunger. These concerns are vitally
important to inmates, but are also subjective and difficult to
evidence in an examination. Several DOC officers indicated that
this also may be a significant security concern because increased
hunger appears to contribute to behavioral problems in the
institutions. In considering the findings related to meal times
noted above, auditors questioned whether the time between meals
contributes to this problem. Inquiry with DOC employees about
the meal times identified in some institutions early evening times
were necessary due to the need to have all inmates report to the
dormitories before dark, and that winter months pose the greatest
challenges.
Recommendations Minimum Meal Service
Requirements

We recommend that DOC review its meal time policies to
determine what, if any, adjustment is needed to meet the
contractual requirement to have less than 14 hours between the
evening meal and the following day’s breakfast.
If this
requirement is not feasible, DOC should update its contractual
provisions to agree to actual practice and also should consider
what alternatives are available to improve timeframes between
meals in its populations with the earliest meal times.

Page 28
FOOD TEMPERATURES
Numerous allegations were received indicating that temperatures
of the food served were not properly maintained. Auditors
recognize that prison institutions create challenges for food
service due to the transportation of food trays to satellite locations
that is often required, and because of the age and condition of
equipment. Also, complaints regarding food temperatures may
be viewed as subjective. However, food temperatures are not
only a matter of personal preferences but also pose health risks.
Therefore, in order to assess the validity of these concerns,
ARAMARK’s meal production records were reviewed to identify
whether temperatures recorded by ARAMARK indicate the
existence of any pervasive concerns.
Production sheets contain areas for documenting the temperatures
of food at different intervals throughout the meal service.
Kentucky’s Food Code indicate hot foods should be held on
serving lines above 140 degrees and cold foods should be held at
or below 41 degrees to meet food safety standards.
Documentation was
not sufficient for
determining whether
ARAMARK maintained
appropriate food
temperatures during
meal service.

Inconsistent and insufficient documentation was noted related to
the documentation of food temperatures for meals served.
Testing indicated 358 instances of the 534 meals in our sample in
which the food temperature documentation was not completed,
temperatures were recorded without a corresponding time noted,
or instances in which temperatures were outside the required
temperature limits.
Also, health department reports reviewed noted one report related
to a possible food illness outbreak, which identified that food
items were not maintained at the appropriate temperature.
However, ARAMARK’s production records for that meal did not
note a food temperature below that required by Kentucky’s Food
Code or HACCP guidelines, drawing into question the accuracy
of those meal production records.

Temperatures for
meals transported to
satellite locations did
not meet food safety
standards.

Meal evaluations completed by DOC employees identified
numerous instances in which meals transported to satellite
locations were at temperatures much lower than required by food
safety standards. ARAMARK’s policy indicates that equipment
used to transport hot food to satellite locations, called hotboxes,
must be at or above 145 degrees to maintain the appropriate
temperatures of the meals. This is important since food trays
often stay in hotboxes for over an hour between the time they are
loaded for transport and the time they are served to the inmates.
The reports reviewed identified 103 out of 279 meals evaluated in
which the hotbox temperatures were below 135 degrees,
including instances in which hotbox temperatures were as low as

Page 29
79 degrees. Furthermore, instances were noted in which the
temperature of the actual food was tested, and was below
appropriate temperatures required for hot foods, such as potatoes
noted below 90 degrees, and instances in which soup, taco meat,
eggs, and other entrees were noted as being less than 125 degrees.
Holding food at these temperatures creates potential health
concerns since food safety standards indicate hot food held at
temperatures below 135 degrees increases the risk for bacterial
growth. Auditors recognized that equipment failures may be a
contributing factor for this problem. Equipment concerns are
discussed further in the “Equipment” section of this report.
Recommendations Food Temperatures

We recommend that in addition to its current meal evaluation
procedures, DOC implement periodic no-notice testing
procedures for food temperatures. This testing should include
checking the temperature of hotboxes used for transporting food
to satellite locations, and also taking actual food temperatures of
items on the meal service line and/or leftovers placed in the
cooler, rather than testing meal trays without the use of a
thermometer. Because of the safety implications, DOC should
consider implementing fines for food temperature violations.

MEAL SERVICE LINE
DELAYS AND FOOD
SHORTAGES
Numerous complaints were noted regarding line stoppages and
food shortages during meal services. DOC officers noted that this
is a particular concern in institutional settings because the
institution runs on strict schedules, and line stoppages interfere
with those schedules and create frustration among inmates.
Furthermore, most line stoppages appear to be created because of
shortages in food prepared for the meal, with inmates waiting in
line while additional food is being prepared or substitutions are
being made. Although ARAMARK indicated that line stoppages
or food shortages are rare, the examination results indicated that it
is not uncommon.
Food shortages and
substitutions raise
questions as to
whether ARAMARK’s
participation rate
estimates are too
conservative.

Based on inquiry with ARAMARK, food shortages may be created
when ARAMARK’s estimated participation rate for the meal is
inaccurate. Although ARAMARK is paid a contractual rate based
on the daily census for each institution, not all inmates utilize the
dining hall for meals. Many inmates purchase food from the
canteens if they have the funds available to do so. In order to
minimize waste and leftovers, ARAMARK estimates the number
of inmates likely to eat by averaging the actual number of meals
served the last three times the same meal was scheduled.
ARAMARK indicates that participation rates vary based on the

Page 30
weather conditions, sporting events or other popular activities, and
it notes those conditions and revises its estimates if needed.
ARAMARK estimated that in 2009, it achieved approximately an
82% annual participation rate. It was not practical for the auditors
to re-calculate ARAMARK’s annual participation rate because it
would require averaging the participation rate for each meal at all
thirteen institutions. However, auditors did recalculate daily
participation rates for individual meals, and it appears that
ARAMARK’s methodology for calculating it is questionable
because participation rates over 100% were noted on daily
production sheets, which suggests that more inmates were served
than the day’s census.
Projecting the participation rate is a useful tool in minimizing
waste and leftovers, and is an industry standard. However, routine
food shortages and substitutions related to an institutional contract
raises questions as to whether ARAMARK’s estimates are too
conservative.
Documentation of line
stoppages is not
consistent between
ARAMARK and DOC’s
records.

Testing included a review of DOC late meal reports and meal
evaluation reports for the existence and frequency of line
stoppages. Testing covered a sample of three months of reports
for two institutions. Testing intended to cover a third institution,
but its late meal reports were not available. DOC’s records tested
indicated 18 line stoppages with delays ranging from 5 to 43
minutes.
To determine whether ARAMARK’s reports are reliable
indicators of line stoppages, ARAMARK’s production records
were compared to DOC’s late meal reports for the same time
period. ARAMARK’s records identified only having 3 line
stoppages in the time period tested. This increases the risk that
ARAMARK management relying on production records for this
information may not be fully aware of the significance of or
number of instances meal lines are stopped.
Based on inquiry with ARAMARK, it considers any line
stoppage over 10 minutes serious. Therefore, it is possible that
some food services managers are only documenting line
stoppages exceeding this timeframe, which may explain some of
the discrepancy between ARAMARK’s records and DOC’s late
meal reports. However, this does not explain all of the
discrepancies since approximately half of the line stoppages in
DOC’s late meal reports exceeded 10 minutes for the time period
tested.
Also, inquiry with officers and inmates indicate that line
stoppages are more common than may be reported. Auditors

Page 31
noted instances in which the DOC reports stated that ARAMARK
ran out of food with people still in line. Although this would
suggest a line delay while additional food was being prepared, the
reports did not always indicate such.
Meal evaluation reports also identified instances in which meals
transported to satellite locations were delayed, some extensively.
These reports noted instances in which officers did not receive all
the trays ordered for the unit, requiring officers to call for
additional trays. Also, the meal evaluations identified instances
in which trays had missing items or no utensils. The calls for
new trays or missing items created extensive delays in some cases
noted, with one wait noted as exceeding 30 minutes.
Although ARAMARK
received verbal and
written warnings
regarding food
shortages in 2005,
shortages continue to
occur, leading to meal
service line delays.

Furthermore, as indicated above, most line stoppages are due to
food shortages. Section 30.120 - Daily Inmate Meal Count states,
…The Contractor(s) shall be responsible for determining the
appropriate number of meals to be prepared according to the
census and the approved Master Menu for each facility.
Inadequate meal quantities shall be considered a breach of
contract. A written warning will be given for the first offense;
reoccurring offenses will be subject to a fine of $250.00 for
each offense.
Although instances were noted in which the additional food
prepared was the same or similar to the menu item scheduled,
numerous substitutions were noted resulting from these shortages.
Examples of these substitutions were listed previously in the
“Master Menu” section of this report.
Auditors noted that ARAMARK received a verbal and written
warning from DOC in 2005 due to food shortages, so it appears
as though DOC was monitoring and addressing these concerns at
that time. No such warnings were noted during the time period
covered by the examination procedures, and it is not clear
whether that is because DOC was not fully aware of the extent of
the concerns or whether monitoring of the issue tapered off over
the years.

Recommendations Meal Service Line
Delays and Food
Shortages

Based on the evaluation of line stoppages and food shortages, we
recommend the following:
• DOC should include information from the meal reports in
its monthly report related to line stoppages and food
substitutions. It should periodically evaluate the number
of occurrences, and implement the penalties permitted by
the contract when appropriate.
• DOC should discuss ARAMARK’s estimate for
determining meal participation to determine if the

Page 32
estimate is too conservative. Again, as noted above, DOC
should consider implementing the penalties permitted by
the contract for shortages and substitutions.
INMATE TRAINING
PROGRAM
The contract requires a comprehensive inmate training program,
IN2WORK, in the culinary arts and food service management.
ARAMARK offers three levels of training - 1) Basic Sanitation,
2) Retail Food Service, and 3) Servsafe Certification. The Retail
Food Service part of the program teaches the inmates about
marketing and inventory. In order to put this practice into action,
ARAMARK offers a program called Fresh Favorites.
Fresh Favorites is a program that allows inmates with good
behavior an opportunity to purchase restaurant quality food via
menu including pizza, hamburgers, french fries, etc. ARAMARK
invoices DOC separately for the inmate Fresh Favorite orders
placed, and DOC pays ARAMARK from inmates accounts that
are charged at the time the inmates places their orders.
From the sale of Fresh Favorite items, DOC receives a
commission of approximately 15% of the total sales, and if an
inmate club is sponsoring the Fresh Favorites event then it also
receives a percentage of the sales in certain institutions.
ARAMARK receives the remaining profit which it estimates to
be approximately 15% after cost.
ARAMARK indicated it uses its profit to fund the IN2WORK
program required by the contract, and that the food purchased for
this program was separate from the food purchased for the regular
meal service. This would be appropriate considering the need to
have a separate cost basis for estimating costs of the IN2WORK
program and calculating the shared profits, and also to avoid the
appearance that fees derived from inmates are being used to pay
for the food products used in the regular meal service.
During the examination, allegations were noted indicating that
ARAMARK used food in storage for regular meal production for
the Fresh Favorites program. This suggests that food products
used in the regular meal production was being paid for by both
DOC’s per diem and inmates through their payments for Fresh
Favorite meals. This also suggests that regular meal service items
are being used in the calculation of Fresh Favorite profits even if
additional items were not purchased.

Page 33
We could not verify
that ARAMARK was
properly invoicing DOC
for Fresh Favorites and
we could not verify
they were not using
food that was part of
the per diem.

In order to assess the validity of the allegation, the Fresh Favorite
menu, invoices for food, and invoices submitted to DOC for one
facility that participates in the Fresh Favorite Program were
reviewed. The testing resulted in the following:
• ARAMARK did not provide all the invoices in their
entirety. Some invoices did not have all the pages copied;
• The dates on some invoices did not correlate with the dates
the Fresh Favorites menu was being offered; and
• Unrelated invoices were submitted for review.
Upon follow up with ARAMARK staff, they claimed not all food
items associated with the Fresh Favorite sales are on the
respective invoice. For instance, items such as buns for burgers,
condiments, paper products, etc., were used from “stock,”
therefore would not be on the invoice.
Therefore, the
documentation of food costs for the Fresh Favorites was not
sufficient for verifying the costs of the program or for ensuring
inmates are not inadvertently paying for food for the regular meal
service already covered by the DOC contract per diem rate.

Recommendations Inmate Training
Program

We recommend that DOC require ARAMARK to attach invoices
for food product related to Fresh Favorites with its invoice. The
invoices should be reviewed for dates and reasonableness of
items. ARAMARK should note on the menu attached to the
invoice any item that was in inventory from a previous Fresh
Favorite sale.

EQUIPMENT
Section 30.160 - Equipment states,
…The Contractor(s) shall be responsible for ensuring that the
equipment is operated and cleaned in strict accordance with
the manufacturers operating manuals. The Contractor(s)
shall adequately operate, clean and maintain the kitchen
equipment to minimize any abuse to the equipment. The
Department will be available to assist in the maintenance of
food service equipment, but maintenance shall ultimately be
the responsibility of the Contractor(s)…
Equipment maintenance
concerns were seen
during on-site visits;
disputes exist as to the
responsible party for
equipment maintenance.

During site visits to institutions, auditors observed several
instances in which repairs were needed in the kitchen, such as
leaks in pipes, malfunctioning hotboxes used to maintain the
appropriate temperature of food during transport, and leaking
kettles. Inquiries with DOC employees indicated the equipment
needed parts which could be ordered, but they were not. In one
institution, a list of 13 pending repairs was provided to the
auditor, and the institution said some of the repairs have been
pending for months although the parts to repair the items were
available for purchase.

Page 34
ARAMARK employees indicated that certain equipment was
beyond repair, and, therefore, it was DOC’s responsibility to
replace the equipment. ARAMARK employees indicated that it
had notified the Warden and/or Deputy Warden of these
concerns, but that the equipment condition continued to be a
concern. DOC employees indicated some of the equipment in the
facilities is very old and acknowledged the problems with the
equipment. However, they did believe some of the equipment
could be repaired and that budgetary constraints made equipment
replacement difficult.
Auditors inquired about the process for replacing equipment, and
noted that ARAMARK presents DOC a “wish list” of new
equipment items annually, and DOC purchases what it can based
on its budget. DOC indicated it purchases items based on its
need, necessity and price. In the inquiry with other states,
auditors noted that some states include contract provisions
requiring the vendor to be responsible for both equipment
maintenance and replacement, which would result in a higher
overall contract price.
The auditors also noted that the contract does not stipulate a
timeframe for the completion of the repairs. However, because of
the impact on food temperatures, and in certain cases, the
increased risk of injury caused by leaking equipment and pipes,
we believe this is an area of concern.
Recommendations Equipment

We recommend DOC modify the contract to stipulate a
timeframe for repairs of equipment, and also implement
monitoring procedures to identify equipment that exceeds the
timeframe for repair. We also recommend that DOC evaluate the
cost-benefit of a provision requiring equipment replacement be
the responsibility of the vendor.

MONITORING
The food services contract contains numerous provisions to
permit the monitoring of various aspects of the food service
operations, such as sanitation, contractual compliance, and meal
service. However, monitoring provisions were not consistently
utilized by DOC, or were not incorporated as part of a
comprehensive monitoring process.

Page 35
Meal evaluation reports
identify significant
areas of concern, but
do not appear to be
used in an overall
contract monitoring
process.

Auditors reviewed a sample of meal evaluations performed by
DOC employees to identify the existence of food service
problems. The meal evaluations identified concerns similar to
those noted in the examination of food service production
records, which indicates that DOC had information on hand that
would help in overall contractual monitoring. Some of the
problems identified in the sample of meal evaluation reports
tested included:
• Instances in which ARAMARK ran out of food during a
meal service and no substitutions were provided;
• Temperature issues, such as those noted during the
auditor’s testing, and especially for trays at satellite
locations;
• Instances in which food delivered to satellite locations
were mixed in the tray during transport;
• Mold noted on equipment used in food services, such as
drink coolers;
• Cold food items transported in hotboxes causing them to
melt and run into other food; and
• Instances in which insects were noted on trays and drink
containers.
Although these evaluations are readily available, the auditors
were unable to determine how meal evaluations are used in an
overall contract monitoring process. Furthermore, it appears that
in some cases, employees may be aware that the evaluations are
not utilized because auditors noted concerns in the preparation of
the meal evaluation reports, such as:
• Instances in which meal evaluations appeared to be
completed prior to the meal service, only requiring an
employee signature;
• Instances in which temperatures on meal evaluation forms
are noted as “satisfactory” instead of listing an actual
temperature of the food on the tray; and
• Instances in which meal evaluations were submitted blank
or partially blank.

Quarterly contract
review meetings
between DOC and
ARAMARK required by
the contract were not
held.

The contract Section 30.330 - ACA Accreditation states,
The Contractor(s) and the Department shall, within sixty (60)
days of execution of the Contract(s), schedule dates for
quarterly review meetings between the Contractor(s) and the
Department for evaluation of the Contract(s). Any monthly
reports to be used to monitor and maintain adequate food
service operations shall be submitted and approved at this
time.
Auditors determined that DOC and ARAMARK did not hold
formal quarterly contract review meetings outlined in Section

Page 36
30.330 of the contract. This section required ARAMARK and
DOC to schedule these meetings in order to comply with ACA
accreditation requirements, and stipulated that monthly reports
used to monitor and maintain adequate food service operations
shall be submitted and approved during these meetings. During
inquiry with department management, they indicated any
evaluation they perform is informal. Problems at the institutional
level are communicated to DOC’s central management and
worked out with ARAMARK, but are not formally documented
in most cases and are not part of routine meetings held with the
vendor. Inquiry with ARAMARK indicated that they do
maintain a good line of communication with DOC to resolve
issues as they arise, but it also confirmed that formal meetings
were not scheduled at the institution or the central level.
Menu Surveys were
not conducted in a
consistent manner at
all institutions, and
results do not appear
to be consistently used
in an overall contract
evaluation.

The contract Section 30.110 - Menu Surveys of the contract
states,
At a minimum, menu surveys shall be conducted on an annual
basis. Survey results are to be used in planning menus and
evaluation of food service operations. Results shall be
summarized and made available to the respective Warden and
the Contract Monitor. Results shall be used in evaluation of the
Contractor(s) at the time of renewal.
Testing included a review of the results of the menu surveys
conducted during the time period DOC operated the institutional
food services, as well as those conducted during the period
ARAMARK operated the institutional food services. The review
indicated that the survey procedures varied between institutions,
such as in the number of surveys distributed to inmates and in the
survey distribution methodology. DOC management indicated
that the surveys were sent to the Wardens for distribution to
inmates, and the decision on how the distribution is handled is
left up to the Warden. Because survey procedures are at the
discretion of the Wardens, distribution methods varied in that
some Wardens select the individuals to receive the surveys and
other institutions randomly distribute them throughout the living
quarters. The number of menu surveys distributed varied from 25
at one institution and more than 60 at another institution.
Also, there is no evidence indicating that the surveys were used to
assist in planning menus or to evaluate food service operations or
that the survey results were used as an evaluation tool during the
contract renewal periods. DOC indicated that both it and
ARAMARK review the surveys upon completion to look for
potential issues with the food. However, DOC management
indicated its primary interest was whether the food was hot when
it should be hot, and that it is cold when it should be cold.

Page 37
The lack of a standardized policy among the institutions may lead
to inconsistent or unreliable results.
Furthermore, DOC
employees and inmates should have a clear understanding of the
objectives of the surveys in order for them to be taken seriously.
It appears that the meal surveys contain information that could
have assisted DOC in monitoring the contract. For example, we
noted the following results:
• For the question, “Rate the quality of food overall (1-10, 1
being the lowest, 10 being the highest).”:
 In 2004 under DOC’s food services operations, the
rating was 6.18;
 In 2009, the rating was 3.24.
• For the question, “Are the hot foods served hot?”:
 In 2004, 54% indicated most of the time as the
response;
 In 2007, 25% indicated most of the time.
Although the survey results would be more reliable if the survey
methodology was improved, based on the results presented, DOC
should have noted changes in perception of the quality and
temperatures of food served over time.
Weekly sanitation
reports showed
deficiencies that were
not always addressed
by ARAMARK or DOC.

The contract Section 30.200 - Sanitation states in part:
The Contractor(s) shall be responsible for maintaining
sanitation in the food service operations, including personal
hygiene, staff sanitation certifications, Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulations, all Health
Department regulations, ACA standards, and any federal and
state mandated policies and regulations. At
a
minimum,
sanitation inspections by Department personnel shall be
conducted on a weekly basis by the Warden or his designee
and by other Department staff as needed. Inspections can be
conducted without prior notice and any discrepancies shall be
documented and necessary action taken…
Weekly sanitation reports at three facilities were tested, and
auditors inquired of DOC and ARAMARK employees regarding
these reports.
Those procedures identified deficiencies
documented on the sanitation reports that were not always
addressed in ARAMARK’s corrective action plan or were not
addressed timely by DOC.
This lack of follow-up resulted in repeat deficiencies and
comments on subsequent sanitation reports.
Without the
resolution of the discrepancies, DOC and ARAMARK could be
found in violation of federal and state policies and regulations.

Page 38
Although external
sanitation reports are
generally favorable,
one non-routine report
identified serious
weaknesses.

External inspections performed by the local health departments
were also reviewed, which are required to be performed twice
annually. In discussing the inspection process with ARAMARK
and also through inquiry with a health department inspector, these
inspections are performed as no-notice inspections although the
food service managers generally know when the inspection is
due. In most cases, passing health department inspections were
noted, and those reports with weaknesses indicated the problems
noted were corrected in a reasonable period of time.
However, one health department report of particular concern was
a non-routine report related to a possible food illness outbreak
mentioned in a previous section of this report. The report
indicated that food workers had cuts, blisters, and other wounds
on their hands and arms, and also indicated ARAMARK failed to
inspect the part-time food service workers for illnesses. The
health department notified ARAMARK of this weakness.
The report also indicated the most probable cause of the illness
outbreak was bacteria from the lunch meal served on the day of
the illness outbreak. The health department tested samples of
food from the meal sample trays, which are required to be
maintained for at least 72 hours after the meal is served.
However, the report indicated the health department was unable
to test the food item that was the most likely source of the
bacteria because the food service workers failed to include the
item on the meal sample trays.
Documentation provided regarding this incident did not indicate
whether the results of the report led to a penalty or warning
against ARAMARK, or that measures were taken to ensure food
safety policies noted by the health department were
communicated to all other institutions.

Grievance procedures
appear to be fair, but
may not be fully utilized
in identifying potential
food service problems.

The contract Section 30.300 - lnmate Complaints and Grievances
states,
Inmates have the opportunity to file grievances about any
aspect of their incarceration, including food service. Any
grievances filed by inmates regarding food service shall be
referred to the Contractor Management Staff (Food Services
Manager), who shall review the informal grievance and take
appropriate action consistent with inmate grievance
procedures outlined in Chapter 14 (14.6 Inmate Grievance
Procedure). Upon request from the Department or Contract
Manager, the Contractor(s), shall furnish all information
provided in response to any grievance in a timely manner. The
inmate may appeal to the Commissioner for further resolution
of any grievance not satisfied in the informal or Wardens' level

Page 39
review. A high number of appeals upheld at this level would
indicate a problem or breakdown and possible weakness in the
delivery of food services. A large percentage of upheld
grievances may result in breach of Contract(s) and possible
non-renewal or termination of Contract(s).
Because the contract language states that a large percentage of
upheld grievances may result in breach of the contract and
possible non-renewal or termination of the contract, the summary
reports for inmate grievances appealed to the DOC Commissioner
were reviewed. Of all grievances appealed to the Commissioner,
the categories most appealed were portion sizes, food shortages,
and sanitation. This testing indicated that most food-related
grievances appealed to the Commissioner are not upheld.
Although the justification of whether to uphold a particular
grievance is at the discretion of the Commissioner based on the
specific circumstances presented, the low percentage of upheld
appeals likely acts as a deterrent for inmate appeals, which
suggests that grievance appeals may not be the most reliable way
to determine whether food service problems exists. Also, this
methodology does not take into consideration the food-related
grievances that are filed and resolved at the institution level,
which may also identify problems and patterns related to food
services that could be addressed centrally.
During interviews with DOC employees and inmates, auditors
inquired as to whether the grievance and appeals process in the
institutions is considered fair. Most individuals indicated that the
grievance process is generally fair, but that food service related
grievances are usually viewed as less serious matters and may not
receive the same attention that other types of grievances receive.
The monthly Grievance Activity Reports for January 2007
through March 2010 submitted to DOC central level management
by each institution were also reviewed. This report shows all
grievances filed at the institutions per month based on issues
varying from Department Regulations, Food, Personal Property,
etc. An analysis was performed to determine how significant the
numbers of food-related grievances were during the examination
period. Based on the documentation received, calendar year 2010
through March had the highest level of food-related grievances
during the period, indicating that food related grievances may be
increasing. The auditors were not able to determine whether this
is related to a change in food service or related to increased
attention given to food services in 2010.

Page 40
DOC does not appear
to have a
comprehensive
monitoring plan for
identifying contractual
problems.

The objective in reviewing the grievance and appeals procedures
above was to determine whether food-related concerns are taken
seriously and used as monitoring procedures for the contract as a
whole. It does appear that DOC’s grievance and appeals
processes appear to be taken seriously in most cases, but it is not
clear whether the results of the grievance process were used
centrally for overall contract monitoring.
In addition to grievance procedures, the contract includes
numerous monitoring provisions for use by DOC. However, there
does not appear to be a comprehensive monitoring process in
place that takes into account information from all areas - such as
grievances, meal reports and evaluations, billing reviews,
sanitation inspections, etc. Auditors did note that DOC has
various ways of communicating with the individual institutions
and ARAMARK regarding noted problems, but specific problems
noted are not always documented, and generally do not appear to
be considered in the context of the contract as a whole. The
approach of addressing problems on a case-by-case basis at the
institution level misses the opportunity to identify pervasive
problems in operations that should be addressed on a more
comprehensive basis.

Recommendations Monitoring

We recommend DOC review its overall contract monitoring
strategy, and develop a systematic way to ensure results from its
various oversight functions are coordinated into a cohesive
monitoring process. DOC should use the results of this central
review to identify best practices and areas for improvement at
individual institutions and work with the vendor on any corrective
action or improvements needed. The monitoring plan should
incorporate specific functions already part of the contractual
provisions, such as quarterly review meetings, meal evaluations,
etc., but should also clarify and standardize many of those
practices in order to improve the reliability and understandability
of the data.
Because of the magnitude of the food services contract, the results
of the monitoring efforts should be compiled in an annual report
or summary, which can be considered in the annual contract
evaluation for assisting DOC in decisions regarding contract
renewal, cost adjustments or contract modifications.

NORTHPOINT
TRAINING CENTER
Due to the concerns arising from a riot at the Northpoint Training
Center in August 2009, testing procedures included this
institution in the sample for detailed examination and for review
of the allegations implicating food services as a possible factor

Page 41
leading to the riot. Unfortunately, the majority of records needed
for the examination were destroyed by the fire in the kitchen
facility during the riot.
Auditors did, however, conduct site
visits, interviews, and reviewed other records available. The
results of these procedures have been included in our report,
where applicable.
One notable concern identified during on-site visits not addressed
elsewhere in this report relates to the temporary kitchen facility
used at the institution. NTC lost its kitchen facility to fire during
the August 2009 riot, and is utilizing a temporary building for its
food services until a new permanent structure can be built. The
temporary building presents significant challenges for food
service operations, which result in sanitation and food storage
concerns. Based on interviews and the auditor’s observations, the
auditors noted:
• Temperature instability in the structure. Because it is a
temporary unit, temperature is very difficult to regulate. Most
notably, during the winter months, individuals indicated the
temperatures in the unit were very cold. Cooking in the
building caused condensation to form on the walls and
ceiling. Ultimately the condensation froze, causing it to
“snow” inside.
• Structural problems make the building more susceptible to
animals, rodents, and insects. Caulking between floor and
wall panels was visible throughout the temporary kitchen unit.
Upon inquiry as to whether the caulking provides sufficient
insulation from pests, auditors were told that it is a concern.
Auditors learned that an animal had found its way into the
kitchen facility at one point. Also, there were concerns about
insects because the floor panels of the temporary kitchen sit
so close to the ground that food can fall between cracks on the
floor, attracting insects and rodents. In addition, auditors
observed gnats in the kitchen area during this site visit.
Auditors acknowledge the circumstances are beyond the control
of ARAMARK, and it did appear that ARAMARK and DOC
were implementing controls to reduce the risk of insect and rodent
infestations to the extent possible. However, this is a high risk
area for potential sanitation and contamination problems, and
should continue to be closely monitored.

Page 42
CANTEENS
Although the examination primarily focused on DOC’s prison
food services contract with ARAMARK, numerous allegations
and concerns arose regarding canteen operations, including
possible conflicts of interest between canteen operations and the
food service operations, complaints of price gouging, and
concerns that DOC may not take food service concerns seriously
due to profits it receives from canteens. Therefore, procedures
were performed to assess the validity and seriousness of these
concerns.
Auditors did not find
evidence of institutional
bias favoring
ARAMARK when
awarding canteen
operations contracts.

As part of the procedures performed to identify potential conflicts
of interest between food service and canteen operations, four
institutions were tested to review the procurement of canteen
vendors. Of the four institutions, one utilized ARAMARK as the
canteen vendor and the other three were under different
management for comparative purposes. Auditors also inquired of
canteen procurement at institutions other than those selected for
testing to determine that procedures were generally consistent to
those institutions tested. These procedures did not identify an
institutional bias toward ARAMARK as a vendor, even after
ARAMARK was awarded the statewide food services contract.

Price differences
among institution
canteens may be
partially explained
through the lack of
centralized procedures
in awarding canteen
contracts and varying
commission rates
among the institutions.

Although food services are contracted on a statewide basis,
canteen operations are contracted separately by each institution.
Each institution negotiates the canteen commission with the
vendor independently, and, therefore, canteen commissions are
not the same for each institution. Statewide, commission rates
vary between 17% and 32%, and even though higher
commissions did not necessarily equate to the highest prices, the
varying commission rates do explain how prices variances would
exist even if the same vendor was utilized statewide. Price
differences were also noted when the same vendor was used at
different institutions. These types of inconsistencies are likely
due to the procurement method of having canteen contracts
awarded separately by each institution.

KCIC, which
administers the receipt
and expenditure of
inmate commissions,
has not adopted the
model procurement
code and is not
reported in the
Commonwealth’s
financial statements.

The canteen commissions noted above are required by KRS
196.270 to be used for the benefit of the inmates, and DOC
created the Kentucky Centralized Inmate Commissary, Inc.
(KCIC) to administer these funds. KCIC is comprised of the
DOC Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner for Adult
Institutions, Director of Administrative Services, and the Warden
of each institution, and manages between $2 and $3 million
dollars in revenues annually. During this examination, the
auditors gained an understanding of KCIC’s administration and
activity to consider the possibility of any conflicts of interest, as
noted above, and also to determine that any payments made to

Page 43
ARAMARK from these funds comply with statutory
requirements. During this review, other matters related to KCIC
were noted that are important to disclose.
KCIC receives an annual audit of these funds, but its funds are
not recorded in the state’s accounting system and are not reported
in the Commonwealth’s Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Furthermore, although KCIC has worked with Finance and
Administration Cabinet on its procurement methods, it has not
adopted the model procurement code detailed in KRS Chapter
45A.
Of even greater concern, although the members of KCIC are state
employees, are assigned to KCIC as part of their official roles in
DOC, and are performing some KCIC duties during working
hours for their state position, it asserts it is not a public entity
required to report its activity in the CAFR and is not required to
follow the model procurement code. Therefore, it is not
administering itself as a public board. This appears to be
inconsistent with accounting standards for financial reporting, but
more importantly, because KCIC does not administer itself as a
public board, it does not adhere to open records and open meeting
statutes. The APA sought an opinion from the Finance and
Administration Cabinet regarding KCIC’s status as a public entity
and it upheld KCIC’s position.
Recommendations Canteens

We recommend:
• KCIC should be fully transparent and accountable to the
public, including adherence to the open meetings and
open record laws, and should adopt the model
procurement code.
• Legislative changes should be made to require KCIC be
treated as a public agency for purposes of procurement,
open records and open meetings to ensure transparency
and accountability.
• KCIC should consider awarding canteen contracts at a
central level.
The Commission should take into
consideration the pros and cons of awarding a single
statewide canteen contract versus awarding individual
contracts, while striving for equity among institutions.

Page 44
CONCLUSION

The examination of the DOC’s food services contract with
ARAMARK was an extensive review of numerous contract
provisions, operations at the institutions, and monitoring
procedures performed by DOC. The food services contract
between DOC and ARAMARK establishes requirements for
feeding between 11,000 and 12,000 inmates three meals every
day, at an annual cost of approximately $12 million. The results
of testing indicate there may be pervasive noncompliances with
the contract requirements. Many areas for improvement were
identified, but two themes impacting the contractual compliance
were prevalent:
• There were significant weaknesses in documentation of
approvals, changes in policy and/or contractual
provisions, and food service problems identified from
various sources, and
• There is a lack of formalized and/or standardized policies
and procedures to monitor the contract centrally.
The findings also identify that more often than not, it appears that
billing errors and production problems tend to favor the vendor
rather than the department. Even though DOC has contracted
with an external vendor for its food services, it still has a duty to
manage its taxpayer resources in the most effective and efficient
way possible, and should improve procedures to enhance its
ability to do so.
Although the contract contains adequate provisions to give DOC
the ability to adequately monitor the food service operations,
DOC did not appear to approach its monitoring from a
comprehensive perspective. Even though DOC may have
routinely discussed its concerns related to food service operations
with ARAMARK on an institution by institution basis, the
documentation of the problems noted, and department’s oversight
and follow-up is scarce. Ultimately, auditors were unable to
determine how ARAMARK’s performance at each institution
was considered and evaluated for the contract as a whole, or how
the problems were followed up on and resolved.

Department of Corrections’ Response

Page 47

JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET
Sleven L. Beshear
Governor

Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 2400

LaDonna H. Thompson
Commissioner

Frankfort, Kentucky 40602

J. Michael Brown
Secretary

Phone (502) 564-4726
Fax (502) 564-5037

www.kenlucky.gov

September 30, 2010
The Honorable Crit Luallen
Auditor of Public Accounts
209 St. Clair Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1817
RE:

Agency Response to Review of DOC-ARAMARK Food Service Contract

Dear Ms. Luallen:
On behalf of the Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC), please accept this letter in
response to the (Draft) Examination of the Kentucky Department of Corrections' Food
Services Contract with ARAMARK Correctional Services, LLC. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide this initial feedback to the findings and recommendations
associated with the report, as well as the additional opinions expressed in it.
DOC recognizes that the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) has conducted a very
extensive examination of all aspects of DOC/ARAMARK operations over a five-month
period. There are key findings within the report that DOC would like to emphasize:
The APA report indicates that the contract with ARAMARK represents a
substantial savings to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth in that DOC's current
per diem price of$2.63 per inmate is in the lower end ofa range of$2.35 to $3.29
per inmate, as revealed in information recently gathered by APA from other
states. The savings is further exemplified when considering the DOC cost per
inmate in 2004 prior to the contract was $3.28 and was subject to inflation each
subsequent year. (Refer to Page 9 of the report)
The APA report confirms that the Master Menu providing for 2800 calories per
day is appropriate and in line with other state correctional system requirements.
The auditors also state that the DOC Master Menu does not violate industry
standards. (Refer to Pages 7 and 8 of the report)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ RESPONSE

Page 48
Department of Corrections’ Response (Continued)

•

The auditors reviewed records, conducted site visits, and interviewed staff and did
not indicate any finding to substantiate the allegation implicating food service
operations as a contributing factor in the disturbance at the Northpoint Training
Center in August of2009. The report did not make any recommendations other
than for the operation of the temporary kitchen facility. (Refer to Pages 40 and 41
of the report)

•

The report confirmed that ARAMARK canteen operations, which are present in
only two (2) ofthe thirteen (13) state facilities, did not reflect price gouging, a
pattern of decreased rate of meal participation, or an inappropriate award of
contract. (Refer to Page 6 ofthe report)

DOC has completed the review of the findings noted on the cover page of the draft audit
report and responses to the findings follow:

1. ARAMARK declined the auditors' requests for certain cost records requested
for its examination. The auditors recommend DOC and Finance and
Administration Cabinet (FAC) review the contl'actual provisions contained in
Section 40,195 of the contract to determine whether ARAMARK is in breach
of contract for its failure to submit relevant financial records to the APA.
•

DOC agrees to meet with FAC to determine if ARAMARK is in breach of
contract for failure to submit relevant financial records to the APA.

2. The examination identified more than $36,000 in overpayments made by
DOC to ARAMARK due to billing errors and non-compliances with contl'act
provisions, which may exceed $130,000 when projected.
•

DOC agrees that billing errors have occurred due to estimations of inmate
counts for weekends, inmate religious meals, staff meals, and meals for the
Kentucky Psychiatric Treatment Center, as noted in the report. With the
advent of increased technology and databases within DOC, up-to-date
count reports will provide an immediate correction for the identified billing
errors.

3. Auditors were unable to verify that ARAMARK consistently followed
approved !'ecipes, used the proper quantity of ingredients, and met food
safety standards regarding food temperature or use ofleftovers due to poor
documentation.
DOC agrees with the recommendations from APA that call for increased
monitoring efforts to include:
• Development of a standard monthly report
• Increased documentation of menu modifications and substitutions
• Increased documentation of the use of leftovers

Page 49
Department of Corrections’ Response (Continued)

•

Resolving discrepancies of portion sizes and weight

4. ARAMARK received almost $148,000 in inmate-grown food for nearly no
cost, which is not compliant with contract provisions.
DOC agrees with the recommendation to re-examine the policy on the use of
inmate-grown food. ARAMARK is billed for produce that is used as a menu item
substitute, but is not billed for produce used as a supplement. As a matter of good
practice, DOC will increase the documentation concerning the quality, billing, and
value of inmate-grown produce, as well as whether the produce is appropriate to
be used as a substitute or serve as a supplemental item to the menu.
S. DOC does not appear to have a compJ'ehensive contract monitoring process in
place.
DOC does not agree that there is not a comprehensive contract monitoring
process. The current monitoring includes staff at each facility as well as staff in
central office. This process includes:
• Approval of the Master Menu by the Director of Nutrition
• Meal evaluation by DOC staff, which requires staff to participate in meal
at each service, to document temperatures, quality, and quantities
• Review ofinmate grievances at institutional and central office level
• Daily meal reports completed by DOC documenting delays/shortages
• Approval of substitutions at central office
• Inmate Menu surveys conducted on annual basis
• Presence of DOC staffin dining room/kitchen for all meals
• On site inspections by Central Office staff
• Sanitation Inspections completed by DOC twice weekly
• Monthly review of inmate and staff meal counts at both institutional and
central office level
• Monthly review of Invoice from contractor by institution
• Health Department Inspections on semi-annual basis
• Audits by American Correctional Association
• Annual audits by Program Security Review team
However, DOC appreciates the recommendation to fmther enhance the current
monitoring strategy of all aspects of food service operations and contract
compliance. The monitoring strategy will include quarterly review meetings at the
central office level, increased documentation of operations, and documented
c011'ective action plans. DOC will review the assignment of staff to accomplish
this monitoring strategy.

Page 50
Department of Corrections’ Response (Continued)

DOC has completed the review of the findings noted in the body of the draft audit report
and responses to the findings follow:
•

Recommendation for a cost analysis to be conducted for the master menu
when considering changes in the contractual cost of services.
All reviews for changes in contractual cost of services are conducted in
accordance with Section 50.410 of the ARAMARK contract which states, "Any
price increase shall not exceed three percent (3%) or the annual Consumer Price
Index, whichever is less." The most recent contract modification in January of
2009 changed the language to four percent (4%) or the Consumer Price Index.
DOC uses both the "Food Away From Home ~ South Urban Area" and "Food at
Employee Sites and Schools" consumer indices for analysis as recommended by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These indexes provide a complex and integrated
benchmark in which to compare the increased costs to ARAMARK, including
food commodities.
ARAMARK received a 3% rate increase effective July 1,2008. The next 3% rate
increase was effective on January 5, 2009. There was no increase in 2010.

•

Recommendation that DOC review its meal time policies to meet the
requirement ofless than 14 hours between the evening meal and following
breakfast meal.
DOC consistently maintains compliance in all facilities with ACA standards
applying to time periods between meals. This practice is documented in annual
reviews. It should be noted that the auditors only had the oppOliunity to review
the meal stati times and did not review documentation of the meal periods, which
can last up to I Y, to 2 hours. DOC will continue to monitor meal time periods to
ensure continued compliance with contractual and ACA standards.

•

Recommendation that DOC implement periodic no-notice testing procedures
for food temperatures.
DOC currently documents food temperatures and accepts the recommendation to
conduct no-notice testing on a weekly basis.

•

Recommendation to document Iiue stoppages and food shortages in a monthly
report.
DOC accepts this recommendation.

•

Recommendation that DOC require ARAMARK to attach invoices for food
products related to Fresh Favorites with its invoice.
DOC agrees with this recommendation as a good practice to document the Fresh
Favorite program.

•

Recommeudation that DOC modify the contract to address equipment
concerns.

Page 51
Department of Corrections’ Response (Continued)

DOC agrees that there is a need to establish accountability for the repair and
replacement of equipment. Equipment issues are to be documented in the monthly
reports and quarterly meetings. DOC will evaluate the cost benefit of requiring
equipment replacement by the vendor in future contract reviews.
•

Recommendation regarding Kentucky Centralized Inmate Commissary, Inc
(KCIC).
The DOC agrees with the opinion of the Finance and Administration Cabinet
regarding KCIC's position. KCIC is required to be audited annually by an outside
agency. The KCIC is required to file semi-annual reports with the Interim Joint
Committee on Appropriations and Revenue detailing the revenues and
expenditures from the Canteen Fund for each state-operated prison, private prison,
and the central office of the department.

This concludes our responses to the draft audit document. Please contact me if
clarification is needed for any statements the Department has submitted in this response.
Sincerely,

rPJ~ H. ~

LaDonna H. Thompson
Commissioner

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Auditor’s Reply

Page 55
EXAMINATION OF THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’
FOOD SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC
Auditor’s Reply
The Department of Corrections was provided an opportunity to respond to the findings and
recommendations identified in the report of the ARAMARK food services contract; their
response is included in the previous section. The auditors have chosen to reply to selected
portions of the department’s response.
DOC Response: “The APA report indicates that the contract with ARAMARK represents a
substantial savings to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth in that DOC's current per diem
price of $2.63 per inmate is in the lower end of a range of $2.35 to $3.29 per inmate, as
revealed in information recently gathered by APA from other states. The savings is further
exemplified when considering the DOC cost per inmate in 2004 prior to the contract was
$3.28 and was subject to inflation each subsequent year. (Refer to Page 9 of the report).”
Auditor’s Reply
As stated in the report, the state-to-state comparison identified a wide range of factors
that impact the per diem, such as the number of calories served per day and different
billing methodologies, as well as quality of menu options and other contractual
specifications. The data is presented for informational purposes because it was used to
assist the auditors in gaining an understanding of industry practices. However, due to the
various contract specifications, a conclusion regarding cost “savings” cannot be drawn
from this information without detailed analysis on the specific cost factors that comprised
the per diems for each state compared to Kentucky. Therefore, that was not the objective
of this information.
Also, DOC indicates the savings is further exemplified considering the 2004 cost of
service was $3.28 when DOC ran food service operations. The auditors do not agree that
ARAMARK’s per diem can be compared to the department’s 2004 cost-per-inmate
estimate as quoted. The APA noted that DOC’s $3.28 data include certain elements of
cost, such as security provided by DOC officers, which is still provided by the
department but not factored into ARAMARK’s per diem.
DOC Response: “The auditors reviewed records, conducted site visits, and interviewed staff and
did not indicate any finding to substantiate the allegation implicating food service operations as
a contributing factor in the disturbance at the Northpoint Training Center in August of 2009. The
report did not make any recommendations other than for the operation of the temporary kitchen
facility. (Refer to Pages 40 and 41 of the report).”
Auditor’s Reply
Our work did not draw a conclusion that food service was not a primary factor of the
August 2009 inmate riot at Northpoint Training Center. In fact, the department’s report
on the riot identified four primary causes of the riot based on its interviews with staff and
inmates, with the third and fourth items being related to food and canteen prices.

Page 56
Auditor’s Reply (Continued)
Auditor’s Reply (Continued)
We would like to clarify that the objective of our report was not to determine the cause of
the riot, but to examine the contract for food service operations. It was our understanding
that ongoing investigations related to the riot were underway by the Kentucky State
Police and DOC at the time of our examination, and that the scope of our procedures was
limited to food service operations.
DOC Response: “DOC agrees with the recommendation to re-examine the policy on the use
of inmate-grown food. ARAMARK is billed for produce that is used as a menu item
substitute, but is not billed for produce used as a supplement. As a matter of good practice,
DOC will increase the documentation concerning the quality, billing, and value of inmategrown produce, as well as whether the produce is appropriate to be used as a substitute or
serve as a supplemental item to the menu.”
Auditor’s Reply
The auditors appreciate DOC’s agreement to re-examine its policy on the use of inmategrown food. We would like to clarify that during the examination of ARAMARK’s
production records, the auditors did not identify any instance in which inmate-grown
food was provided as a supplemental menu item. The inmate-grown food was provided
as a menu substitution in all instances identified in our testing, which included one of the
highest yield months of the growing season.
DOC Response: “DOC does not agree that there is not a comprehensive contract
monitoring process. The current monitoring includes staff at each facility as well as staff in
central office. This process includes:
• Approval of the Master Menu by the Director of Nutrition
• Meal evaluation by DOC staff, which requires staff to participate in meal at each
service, to document temperatures, quality, and quantities
• Review of inmate grievances at institutional and central office level
• Daily meal reports completed by DOC documenting delays/shortages
• Approval of substitutions at central office
• Inmate Menu surveys conducted on annual basis
• Presence of DOC staff in dining room/kitchen for all meals
• Onsite inspections by Central Office staff
• Sanitation Inspections completed by DOC twice weekly
• Monthly review of inmate and staff meal counts at both institutional and central
office level
• Monthly review of Invoice from contractor by institution
• Health Department Inspections on semi-annual basis
• Audits by American Correctional Association
• Annual audits by Program Security Review team

Page 57
Auditor’s Reply (Continued)

DOC Response (Continued): However, DOC appreciates the recommendation to further
enhance the current monitoring strategy of all aspects of food service operations and
contract compliance. The monitoring strategy will include quarterly review meetings at the
central office level, increased documentation of operations, and documented corrective
action plans. DOC will review the assignment of staff to accomplish this monitoring
strategy.”
Auditor’s Reply
We acknowledge that DOC has several of the oversight procedures listed above in
place, but testing indicated that many of DOC’s internal procedures listed are not well
documented, not effective, and/or not well communicated. Also, as stated in the
APA’s report, DOC’s monitoring procedures were not part of a cohesive overall
approach, and therefore weaknesses identified in one area may not be known or
considered in the context of overall contract performance. The impact of this means
that while some problems may have been handled at a facility level, the annual
contract renewal and cost increase decisions did not include consideration of many
problems identified. We appreciate DOC’s response related to improving the
documentation and communication of these matters.
DOC Response: “All reviews for changes in contractual cost of services are conducted in
accordance with Section 50.410 of the ARAMARK contract which states, "Any price increase
shall not exceed three percent (3%) or the annual Consumer Price Index, whichever is less."
The most recent contract modification in January of 2009 changed the language to four
percent (4%) or the Consumer Price Index. DOC uses both the "Food Away From Home ~
South Urban Area" and "Food at Employee Sites and Schools" consumer indices for analysis
as recommended by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These indexes provide a complex and
integrated benchmark in which to compare the increased costs to ARAMARK, including food
commodities.

ARAMARK received a 3% rate increase effective July 1, 2008. The next 3% rate increase
was effective on January 5, 2009. There was no increase in 2010.”
Auditor’s Reply
For clarification, the APA’s report identifies an instance in which ARAMARK was,
in effect, given two contract price adjustments in one year. One of those adjustments
was a percentage increase in accordance with the language as noted above. The other
adjustment may have been an inadvertent price adjustment resulting from changes in
the Master Menu. The APA recommends DOC analyze the financial impact of
changes to the Master Menu, or other contractual changes with a potential cost
impact, and document the cost benefit provided to ARAMARK, if any. These costs
benefits should be considered price adjustments, and documented as such.