17.03.2014 Views

Complete 2012 forensic audit documents - Kansas Bioscience ...

Complete 2012 forensic audit documents - Kansas Bioscience ...

Complete 2012 forensic audit documents - Kansas Bioscience ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

KBA Forensic Audit Summary Page 3 of 30<br />

Issues related to KBA investments and investment processes<br />

Audit location Issue/Question Summary<br />

Beginning on<br />

page 69<br />

Beginning on<br />

page 70<br />

In January 2010, KBA approved $1.5 million to<br />

match a Department of Energy grant won by Agco<br />

Corp. for an $11.7‐million project related to<br />

supplying biomass feed stocks to cellulosic<br />

biofuels processors. The project was undertaken<br />

at Agco’s Hesston, <strong>Kansas</strong>, facility.<br />

In February 2011, KBA approved a $131,800 proofof‐concept<br />

grant to help Choco Finesse, LLC, to<br />

undertake pre‐market work related to a lowcalorie<br />

substitute for cocoa butter and other fats.<br />

The technology is owned by the National Institute<br />

for Strategic Technology Acquisition and<br />

Commercialization at K‐State, which received the<br />

intellectual property as donation resulting from<br />

“merger integration and new priorities” (p. 71) of<br />

the companies that developed and subsequently<br />

owned the property. Some have alleged that “the<br />

company is managed by a schoolteacher and her<br />

husband” (p. 70).<br />

BKD notes in its review of the pertinent investment committee minutes that committee member<br />

Bill Sanford “expressed his opinion that the KBA’s contribution would likely not have much impact<br />

on a company the size of Agco, and that the KBA’s funding is only a relatively minor part of a<br />

much larger project funded by DoE and Agco itself. A member of Agco’s management … in<br />

attendance … acknowledged the validity of these points. However, he stated that Agco’s<br />

involvement in the project was deemed to be a challenge and exposed Agco to a greater level of<br />

risk than other R&D projects it has undertaken. Incentives offered by the KBA and the federal<br />

government will help Agco to undertake this more risky R&D effort and product development”<br />

(pp. 69 and 70).<br />

BKD reviewed information “available from the grant application” about the key company<br />

personnel. KBA notes that none is a schoolteacher and all appear to be highly qualified. KBA also<br />

notes that one person has alleged that Choco Finesse is not a <strong>Kansas</strong> company, but BKD cites the<br />

company’s <strong>Kansas</strong> certificate number, as reported on the <strong>Kansas</strong> Secretary of State’s website,<br />

which supports the assertion that it is.<br />

Beginning on<br />

page 71<br />

In October 2008, KBA approved a $1 million R&D<br />

voucher award to ICM, Inc., for a bioenergy<br />

research project. In June 2010, ICM announced it<br />

would build and operate a new plant in St.<br />

Joseph, Missouri. Some have alleged that “KBA’s<br />

funds were therefore spent in Missouri rather<br />

than <strong>Kansas</strong>” (p. 72).<br />

BKD reports that “KBA’s … grant was for a specific purpose,” namely to support a specific project<br />

that the KBA reports was performed at ICM’s Colwich, <strong>Kansas</strong>, location. Tony Simpson, the KBA<br />

director of commercialization responsible for the grant, “indicated he had visited the ICM Colwich<br />

location a number of times and could verify that the research is being done at that location …” (p.<br />

72). BKD concludes that “based on the available information, it does not appear that KBA funds<br />

were used to construct or remodel ICM’s pilot plant at its St. Joseph location” (p. 72).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!