State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

Report of

Investigation

AGENCY: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION & CORRECTION
FILE ID NO.: 2016-CA00020
DATE OF REPORT: JUNE 15, 2017

The Office of the Ohio Inspector General ...
The State Watchdog

“Safeguarding integrity in state government”
The Ohio Office of the Inspector General is authorized by state law to investigate alleged
wrongful acts or omissions committed by state officers or state employees involved in the
management and operation of state agencies. We at the Inspector General’s Office
recognize that the majority of state employees and public officials are hardworking,
honest, and trustworthy individuals. However, we also believe that the responsibilities of
this Office are critical in ensuring that state government and those doing or seeking to do
business with the State of Ohio act with the highest of standards. It is the commitment of
the Inspector General’s Office to fulfill its mission of safeguarding integrity in state
government. We strive to restore trust in government by conducting impartial
investigations in matters referred for investigation and offering objective conclusions
based upon those investigations.
Statutory authority for conducting such investigations is defined in Ohio Revised Code
§121.41 through 121.50. A Report of Investigation is issued based on the findings of the
Office, and copies are delivered to the Governor of Ohio and the director of the agency
subject to the investigation. At the discretion of the Inspector General, copies of the
report may also be forwarded to law enforcement agencies or other state agencies
responsible for investigating, auditing, reviewing, or evaluating the management and
operation of state agencies. The Report of Investigation by the Ohio Inspector General is
a public record under Ohio Revised Code §149.43 and related sections of Chapter 149.
It is available to the public for a fee that does not exceed the cost of reproducing and
delivering the report.
The Office of the Inspector General does not serve as an advocate for either the
complainant or the agency involved in a particular case. The role of the Office is to
ensure that the process of investigating state agencies is conducted completely, fairly, and
impartially. The Inspector General’s Office may or may not find wrongdoing associated
with a particular investigation. However, the Office always reserves the right to make
administrative recommendations for improving the operation of state government or
referring a matter to the appropriate agency for review.
The Inspector General’s Office remains dedicated to the principle that no public servant,
regardless of rank or position, is above the law, and the strength of our government is
built on the solid character of the individuals who hold the public trust.

Randall J. Meyer
Ohio Inspector General

State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

REPORT

OF

INVESTIGATION

FILE ID NUMBER:

2016-CA00020

SUBJECT NAME:

Aramark Correctional Services, LLC

POSITION:

Vendor

AGENCY:

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

BASIS FOR INVESTIGATION:

Initiative

ALLEGATIONS:

Failure to Exercise Adequate Oversight of
Agency/Departmental Functions/Activities; and
State Contracts

INITIATED:

May 18, 2016

DATE OF REPORT:

June 15, 2017

INITIAL ALLEGATION AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY
In February 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General became aware of a report issued by
the Michigan Office of Auditor General summarizing its review of the Michigan Department of
Corrections Food Services and its contract with Aramark Correctional Services Inc. (Aramark).
The report noted that the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) used the MealTrac1
computer system to track inmate meal activity. Because Aramark believed these counts were
inaccurate, Aramark conducted its own meal counts and billed MDOC using its (Aramark’s)
count. The Michigan Auditor General reported that Aramark and MDOC were unable to agree
on the accuracy of the MDOC meal counts and that no processes existed to validate the
differences between Aramark’s billed inmate meal counts and the MDOC meal counts. Thus,
the Michigan Auditor General reported that MDOC paid Aramark $3.4 million for billed meal
counts that exceeded the MDOC counts; and in some instances, the counts exceeded the facility
census counts.

The Office of the Ohio Inspector General compared the billing methods reflected in the contracts
awarded to Aramark by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and by
MDOC. Investigators determined that ODRC agreed to pay Aramark for meals served based on
a midnight inmate census count, whereas MDOC paid Aramark for actual inmate meals served.
Further research also revealed additional news articles highlighting issues with Aramark’s
overbilling of meals served at various other correctional institutions throughout the United
States.

On May 18, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General initiated an investigation to review
the contract provisions detailing payments to be made by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction to Aramark Correctional Services, LLC for food services provided in accordance
with the contract.

1

MealTrac is a computer system software designed to automatically count the number of meals served to prisoners
for billing purposes.

1

BACKGROUND
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction is charged with the supervision of felony
offenders in the custody of the state, including providing housing, following their release from
incarceration, and monitoring the individuals through the parole authority. The department also
oversees the community control sanction system that provides judges with sentencing options to
reduce the inmate population. There are currently 31 correctional institutions throughout the
state. The director of ODRC is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Ohio Senate.
ODRC is funded through general revenue funds, federal funding, and revenue earned through
sales from the Ohio Penal Industries.

Aramark Contract
On June 21, 2013, ODAS awarded a contract to Aramark Correctional Services, LLC effective
from September 8, 2013, through June 30, 2015. ODAS subsequently renewed the contract
through June 30, 2017. In the contract, Attachment Three, Part One: Performance and Payment,
Compensation provides that “… the State will pay the Contract the amounts identified in the
RFP (the “Fee”), plus any other expenses identified as reimbursable in the RFP.”

INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
The Office of the Ohio Inspector General obtained documentation supporting the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) payments to Aramark Correctional
Services, Inc. and determined the following total payments were issued for services provided
from December 31, 2015, through November 23, 2016:

Services Provided
Inmate Meals per Census Count
Kosher Meals
Additional Expenses Incurred
Credits Issued

Amount Billed
$ 58,906,446.61
2,545.48
42,660.22
(712.50)
$ 58,950,939.81

On September 12, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General interviewed ODRC Office of
Acquisition and Contract Compliance Assistant Chief Ken Kopycinski to determine the process

2

ODRC used to verify the accuracy of the invoices submitted by Aramark. Kopycinski explained
that both he and Aramark representatives have access to the daily SNAPS2 report. The SNAPS
report shows the total number of inmates housed at each correctional institution and a grand total
for all correctional institutions. These reports are maintained in an ODRC network system folder
accessible by both Kopycinski and Aramark representatives.

Kopycinski explained that for each Aramark monthly invoice submitted to ODRC, it (Aramark)
submitted an Excel workbook containing worksheets showing the invoice, kosher meals served,
and a worksheet for each correctional institution documenting each day’s midnight census
inmate count and the grand total for the identified billing period obtained from the SNAPS
report. Kopycinski stated initially that he compared the daily inmate midnight census count for
each correctional institution Aramark reported to the corresponding daily SNAPS report from the
ODRC Departmental Offender Tracking System (DOTS).3 Kopycinski stated that he found no
discrepancies during this review. Kopycinski explained that he currently “spot-checks” the daily
counts Aramark reported to the supporting SNAPS reports and continues to find minimal, if any,
discrepancies.

Kopycinski explained Aramark attaches support documentation to validate the additional
expenses or credits reflected on the monthly invoice. Support documentation primarily includes
incident reports, third-party invoices, emails, and other relevant documentation. Kopycinski
explained that he reviews the attached support documentation and verifies that the additional
expenses invoiced and credits awarded by Aramark are supported. Once completed, Kopycinski
prints the invoice, documents that it is “ok to pay,” and signs his name. The printed invoice is
attached to a copy of the contract and purchase order and is then sent by Kopycinski’s staff to
accounts payable for processing.
Review of Inmate Midnight Census Count
A review of the Request for Proposal and subsequent contract noted that Aramark agreed to
invoice ODRC using a,

2
3

This is short for snapshot.
A computer system used to track inmate information by ODRC.

3

… per diem rate per inmate on the midnight census count, where the Agency [ODRC]
will pay the awarded Contract on a monthly basis the per diem rate multiplied by the
daily midnight [census] count for each institution for each day of service in the month for
which the invoice is submitted.

The Office of the Ohio Inspector General compared the daily inmate midnight census count
Aramark reported to the daily SNAPS reports4 to determine whether Aramark’s counts were in
agreement. Investigators noted a daily discrepancy of 13 inmates between the SNAPS report
grand total and the calculated total of inmate counts for all correctional institutions served by
Aramark for December 31, 2015, through March 30, 2016.

On October 25, 2016, Kopycinski explained that in July 2014, there was a meeting between
Aramark and ODRC representatives to discuss the reason the 13 inmates were included in the
overall SNAPS report total, but not in a calculated total of the correctional institution inmate
counts. Kopycinski recalled that ODRC IT representatives thought the issue involved London
Correctional Institution (LOCI). Based on these discussions, ODRC instructed Aramark to add
13 inmates to the SNAPS report counts for LOCI when calculating the daily inmate midnight
census counts. Upon receipt of Aramark’s invoice, ODRC paid Aramark for the number of
meals served based on the actual daily midnight inmate census count plus the 13 additional
inmates ODRC directed Aramark to add to the LOCI daily count.

Investigators asked ODRC to provide an explanation as to how the SNAPS report was generated
from the ODRC Departmental Offender Tracking System (DOTS). In emails dated December 7
and 8 of 2016, ODRC Program Administrator 3 Brian Wittrup explained that, as he understood
it, the SNAPS report,
… snapshots a single time in the database of what inmates are listed for what prisons in
the database. But, if releases have not been taken out of the system, or out-to-court or the
myriad of other movements, it will not be reflected in the SNAPS count.

4

ODRC provided institution count sheets generated by ODRC staff when the SNAPS reports were no longer
available. Each day’s SNAPS report was only available for a 24-hour period.

4

Wittrup further stated that the “SNAPS report will vary from the prisons because the prison
counts are real time BODY counts, factoring in dozens of variables… . The computer counts are
NOT body counts.” ODRC does not operate a “computer driven count system.”

On December 21, 2016, Kopycinski emailed investigators that the ODRC IT staff had notified an
ODRC deputy director that, “… the issue with the DOTS Portal SNAPS report has been
identified and corrected.” ODRC IT staff had determined that the 13-inmate discrepancy was
caused by test or dummy inmates in test cases assigned to the now-closed Ohio State
Reformatory. These 13 inmates were included in the overall SNAPS report total numbers
reported by the DOTS system and were subsequently used by ODRC and Aramark for the daily
inmate midnight census count. Kopycinski further stated that ODRC had contacted the Ohio
Department of Administrative Services (ODAS) to determine the steps to be undertaken to
correct this situation.

On February 15, 2017, Kopycinski stated in an email to investigators that ODRC had determined
that Aramark owed ODRC $57,192.64 for the 13 inmates that ODRC had directed Aramark to
add to the inmate daily midnight census count from September 18, 2013, through November 23,
2016. On March 31, 2017, Aramark credited $57,192.645 against the amount owed by ODRC
for these additional inmate meals.

Additional Expenses: Paper Goods
During a review of the ODRC support documentation for additional expenses totaling
$42,660.22, investigators noted ODRC paid Aramark for half of the paper costs during floor
construction at Toledo Correctional Institution. On September 13, 2106, Kopycinski explained
to investigators that the contract between ODRC and Aramark provided that ODRC is
responsible for 50 percent of the costs should ODRC prevent Aramark from using the kitchen
equipment for more than one day.

5

ODRC calculated this amount as the number of calendar days times the applicable per diem rate for 13 inmates.
For example, for the period of 9/8/13 through 6/30/14, ODRC identified 296 serving days at $3.61 per day for 13
inmates, or $13,887.43. Similar calculations were performed for the period of 7/1/14 through 11/23/16.

5

On November 30, 2016, investigators requested that Kopycinski identify which section of the
contract that contained this requirement. Kopycinski replied in an email on the same date that,
“… it is not part of the original contract but an agreement between both parties.” Given that
some of the construction projects are consisting of weeks and even months in some cases,
Kopycinski explained that Aramark requested that ODRC “… pay for the cost of the paper
product when a project consisted of weeks and months as DRC was to provide Aramark with an
operational kitchen with equipment.” Ultimately, Kopycinski stated that it was agreed that, “…
DRC and Aramark would split the cost 50/50 on large construction or kitchen replacement
projects.” Investigators determined that ODRC paid Aramark $37,682.73 for 50 percent of the
cost of paper goods used because of equipment failure or construction that had occurred from
July 30, 2015, through September 28, 2016.

In a later email on the same day, Kopycinski told investigators that this understanding was a
verbal agreement between ODRC and Aramark. However, in Attachment Three General Terms
and Conditions, Part Six: Construction, Amendments – Waiver of the contract between ODRC
and Aramark provides, “No change to any provision of this Contract will be effective unless it is
in writing and signed by both parties.”

Kopycinski also told investigators via email that ODRC had contacted ODAS on November 30,
2016, to begin the process of incorporating the verbal agreement into the existing contract
between Aramark and ODRC. On December 16, 2016, Kopycinski informed investigators that
this request was made by ODRC once the issue was brought to the department’s attention by the
Office of the Ohio Inspector General.

ODRC provided investigators with a copy of the amended sections of the contract between
ODRC and Aramark, effective January 13, 2017. This amendment incorporated the previous
verbal agreement between ODRC and Aramark for certain paper product expenses.

Additional Expenses: Food
Further review of ODRC’s support documentation for additional expenses also revealed that
ODRC paid an additional $6,620.58 for the increased cost of the ODRC-approved construction

6

menu served to inmates at the Northeast Reintegration Center (NERC) from August 25, 2016,
through November 23, 2016, and for a shorter period of time at the Richland Correctional
Institution. Investigators further noted that ODRC paid Aramark an additional $17,011 for pizza
and catered meals served to NERC inmates on select days in addition to the construction menu
items in September and October 2016.

Kopycinski explained to investigators in emails that the NERC kitchen underwent a major
renovation during this time and the entire kitchen was shut down for an extended period of time.
During this same time period, the food production and serving areas at Richland Correctional
Institution were also renovated. Because of these renovations, ODRC and Aramark dieticians
created a construction menu to be served to the inmates. Kopycinski stated that he and both
ODRC and Aramark dieticians discussed the master menu changes during conference calls.
During these conference calls, Kopycinski stated that he provided a verbal approval for the
additional costs to be billed, did not document these approvals in writing, and that the ODRC
deputy director was aware that the construction menus would result in additional costs.

Because of the limited variety of food, limited cooking ability, and the potential for inmates
becoming disgruntled, ODRC requested that during the construction period, Aramark provide the
construction menus. In addition, Aramark was requested to serve the additional food items on
select normal construction menu days in accordance with Section K of the Aramark contract.
This section provided the “… contractor may be requested to provide food service for special
meetings or events held within an institution on an as-needed basis.”

Investigators also noted that Aramark invoiced ODRC for the additional cost for only those
meals served, which was less than the inmate midnight census count during the period the
construction menus were used. Kopycinski told investigators in a January 25, 2017, email that
Aramark had approached him and recommended,
… during the construction periods at both NERC and Richland Correctional Institution
that it would be better (cheaper) for ODRC to be charged the actual meals served due to
the additional construction costs rather than the midnight census which would be at
100%.

7

Kopycinski explained that Aramark provided ODRC with the inmate counts, that ODRC did not
have a staff member present to verify the actual meal counts, but that the “… number of meals
served presented to ODRC by Aramark for payment during the construction period was less than
the 100% midnight census for the same time period.”

Investigators reviewed the meal production menus for the dates that Aramark purchased pizza
and the catered meals and determined that Aramark served these items to the inmates in addition
to the items identified on the master menu for that date. However, investigators noted that
ODRC reimbursed Aramark for $350 tips given to the vendors supplying Aramark the pizza to
be served to the inmates.

On January 11, 2017, Kopycinski told investigators in an email that he had discussed inclusion
of the tips in the expenses ODRC had paid to Aramark with the ODRC Division of Business
Administration chief. Kopycinski stated that the ODRC Division of Business Administration
chief had determined that ODRC should not have paid Aramark for the tips Aramark added for
the purchase of pizza. Kopycinski stated that ODRC had calculated $350 in tips paid to Aramark
and that Aramark had agreed to credit ODRC for the total tip amount on the next monthly
invoice. On January 27, 2017, Aramark submitted an invoice to ODRC for services rendered
during the period from December 29, 2016, through January 25, 2017, which included a credit
for the $350 of tips previously billed to and paid by ODRC.

Other Issues
During the investigation, investigators noted prescribed ODRC forms used to support credits
billed by Aramark were not completed in their entirety, information on the prescribed forms was
not verified for accuracy, and approvals for billing of the additional expenses billed by Aramark
to ODRC was not reflected on the documentation submitted. Kopycinski explained to
investigators that he typically discussed expenses with Aramark officials, provided verbal
approvals, and did not maintain written documentation showing his approval of the additional
expenses.

8

CONCLUSION
On May 18, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General initiated an investigation to review
the contract provisions detailing payments to be made by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (ODRC) to Aramark Correctional Services LLC (Aramark) for food services
provided in accordance with the contract. The Office of the Ohio Inspector General reviewed
invoices submitted by Aramark totaling $58,906,446.61 for meals served to inmates using the
daily midnight census count.

Investigators determined an additional 13 inmates were included in the daily midnight census
counts used by Aramark to calculate the amounts owed by ODRC for the inmate meals served.
ODRC representatives explained that an error was identified in July 2014 between the calculated
total of the individual institutions and the total reported in the SNAPS report used by Aramark.
Based on discussions at a July 2014 meeting attended by ODRC and Aramark representatives,
ODRC stated they had directed Aramark to add 13 inmates to the daily London Correctional
Institution inmate count.

After further investigative inquiries, ODRC notified the Office of the Ohio Inspector General in
December 2016 that the 13 inmates were, in fact, test inmates and should not have been included
in the daily counts used by Aramark to calculate the number of meals served. On March 13,
2017, ODRC received a credit in the amount of $57,192.64 for the 13 test inmates added to the
daily inmate count during the period from September 18, 2013, through November 23, 2016.

Investigators further noted that ODRC had paid Aramark for $42,660.22 of additional expenses
which included $350 for tips paid when purchasing supplemental food at ODRC’s request. After
investigators questioned the tip reimbursement, ODRC determined it had improperly reimbursed
Aramark for the tips and subsequently received a $350 credit from Aramark on the January 27,
2017, invoice.

Lastly, investigators noted that ODRC had also reimbursed Aramark $37,682.73 for 50 percent
of the cost of paper goods incurred during kitchen renovations or equipment repair during the
period from July 30, 2015, through September 28, 2016. ODRC representatives explained to

9

investigators that ODRC and Aramark had verbally agreed to split these costs and that this
agreement was “… not part of the original contract but an agreement between both parties.”

This verbal agreement was contrary to Attachment Three General Terms and Conditions, Part
Six: Construction of the contract between ODRC and Aramark, Amendments – Waiver which
provided, “No change to any provision of this Contract will be effective unless it is in writing
and signed by both parties.”

Accordingly, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General finds reasonable cause to believe
wrongful acts or omissions occurred in these instances.

The contract between Aramark and ODRC was amended effective January 13, 2017, to include
the previous verbal agreement made between ODRC and Aramark in the summer of 2015.

RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Office of the Ohio Inspector General makes the following recommendations and asks that
the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction respond within 60 days
with a plan detailing how these recommendations will be implemented:

1. Consider amending the contract between ODRC and Aramark to incorporate the process
for developing construction menus and using an alternative billing basis for Aramark to
invoice for inmate meals served during the renovation of correctional institution kitchen
and food preparation facilities.

2. Consider amending the contract between ODRC and Aramark to incorporate a definition
of a special event or meeting to support Aramark’s ability to invoice ODRC for meals
served in these situations.

3. Consider developing a form to attach to the monthly Aramark invoices which
summarizes conversations between ODRC and Aramark regarding additional expenses
being incurred. It is suggested that the form identify the section of the contract

10

permitting the expense to be charged to ODRC by Aramark, an explanation of the
circumstances that are resulting in the expense, and document ODRC’s approval for
Aramark to bill the additional expense.

4. Consider updating ODRC policies and procedures to incorporate review procedures to
ensure that on incident forms all questions are answered, hours and associated hourly
rates are verified, and that the forms were completed within the prescribed timeframe.

REFERRAL(S)
This report of investigation will be provided to the Ohio Auditor of State for consideration.

11

State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

NAME OF REPORT: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
FILE ID #: 2016-CA00020

KEEPER OF RECORDS CERTIFICATION
This is a true and correct copy of the report which is required to be prepared
by the Office of the Ohio Inspector General pursuant to Section 121.42 of the
Ohio Revised Code.

Jill Jones
KEEPER OF RECORDS
CERTIFIED
June 15, 2017

Rhodes State Office Tower ◊ 30 East Broad Street – Suite 2940 ◊ Columbus, Ohio 43215-3414
Phone: 614-644-9110 ◊ FAX: 614-644-9504 ◊ Toll Free: 800-686-1525 ◊ Email: oig_watchdog@oig.ohio.gov
The Ohio Inspector General is on the World Wide Web at www.watchdog.ohio.gov

MAILING ADDRESS

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
JAMES A. RHODES STATE OFFICE TOWER
30 EAST BROAD STREET – SUITE 2940
COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3414

TELEPHONE

(614) 644-9110
IN STATE TOLL- FREE

(800) 686-1525
FAX

(614) 644-9504
EMAIL

OIG_WATCHDOG@OIG.OHIO.GOV
INTERNET

WATCHDOG.OHIO.GOV