Explorer

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a control over the review of outstanding accounts receivable for another business entity but did not perform any procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For certain revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of whether the GAAP requirements that (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement existed and (2) collectability was reasonably assured were met for transactions recorded as revenue. (AS 2201.39)

For certain of this revenue the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of a monthly comparison of a sample of invoices to the related prior-month invoice and the investigation of differences. In testing these controls the firm did not inspect the invoices the control owners used in this comparison to determine whether all differences were identified for investigation. (AS 2201.44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether all manual sales orders were entered into the revenue system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and allocated consideration to the deliverables using vendor-specific objective evidence ('VSOE') of fair value or its BESP. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified errors in the issuer's VSOE and BESP analyses and concluded that the issuer's control over the preparation and review of these analyses was not operating effectively as of year end. In determining whether the deficiency represented a material weakness the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the magnitude of the potential misstatements because it limited its procedures to evaluating the known misstatements. (AS 2201.62 and .63)

The firm selected for testing a control over certain revenue and the related accounts receivable that consisted of the review of sales orders the issuer entered into its revenue system. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether all sales orders were subject to this review. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether all approved requests for changes in billing rates were processed in the revenue system. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the accuracy of the prices and quantities that were used to record revenue at two of the issuer's business units. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used an IT system to record revenue and accounts receivable transactions related to certain services that the issuer provided to its customers. This system recorded revenue transactions using service codes that the system selected based on various inputs into the system. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the system applied the appropriate service codes based on the inputs into the system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the annual adjustments to the contract prices that the issuer entered into its revenue system and used to calculate and recognize revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain data that were used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the annual adjustments to the contract prices that the issuer entered into its revenue system and used to calculate and recognize revenue. One aspect of this control consisted of the control owner's review of a sample of these pricing adjustments. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to satisfy the issuer's control objective given the high rate of discrepancies the control owner identified in the sample reviewed. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing an automated control over the calculation of revenue for this segment by the issuer's billing system. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of this control for three of the issuer's types of revenue related to this segment. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to process transactions related to revenue that automatically assigned predefined codes to each transaction. These codes were used by the issuer's system to determine revenue and certain related adjustments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether certain of these codes were appropriately assigned by the IT system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to process transactions related to revenue that automatically assigned predefined codes to each transaction. These codes were used by the issuer's system to determine revenue and certain related adjustments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold but did not evaluate whether this threshold was sufficiently precise to detect misstatements that could be material. (AS 2201.42)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accounts receivable allowance and bad debt expense. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review of accounts receivables and the allowance for credit losses. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing multiple controls over user access to various applications. The firm did not evaluate the procedures that the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to create edit and maintain the security roles within these applications. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a number of automated application controls related to processing revenue transactions and performing database reconciliations. For certain of these controls the firm did not sufficiently test the design effectiveness of the controls because it did not determine whether items that met the issuer's established criteria would be properly investigated and resolved. (AS 2201.42)

For the other controls the firm did not perform any procedures to test the design effectiveness of the controls. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory for this business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: • With respect to the first system the issuer maintained separate instances of this system at each of its locations; each instance represented a separate occurrence of the system that could be configured differently. The firm selected for testing certain automated controls over this system. The firm's approach to testing only one instance of the operation of these automated controls was inappropriate because it was based on an unsupported assumption that all instances of this system were configured the same way and that the automated controls for each instance were designed and operated the same way. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory for this business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm identified control deficiencies related to certain controls over access to the second system. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies because its procedures were limited to evaluating whether the changes made to the system in the current year were appropriate without evaluating the magnitude of the potential misstatement that could have resulted from inappropriate access to this system. (AS 2201.62)

The firm tested information technology general controls for an application used to process revenue and accounts receivable transactions and identified control deficiencies related to access and change management. The firm selected for testing controls over certain revenue that consisted of the automated generation of a customer invoice and recognition of related revenue and accounts receivable upon shipment of goods. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because it tested only one instance which was not appropriate due to the identified control deficiencies. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used two IT systems to process and record transactions related to revenue and certain accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing various controls over the issuer's review of user access to these IT systems but did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether to grant access to users or whether the granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the existence and completeness of accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the review of the allowance for doubtful accounts. With respect to the control over the accurate aging of outstanding invoices the firm did not directly test this control because its procedures were substantive in nature. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39)

For revenue accounts receivable and unbilled receivables the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the review of the accuracy of invoices. The firm identified deviations in the operation of this control but did not determine the effect of these deviations on the operating effectiveness of this control. (AS 2201.48)