Explorer

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of revenue including the estimated costs to complete. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain data in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's sample size for testing revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's omission of the disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers separately from its other sources of revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers and determined a disclosure was omitted. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this omission in a subsequent filing.

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain price and quantity information that was entered into these IT systems and used to generate customer invoices and recognize revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to prices maintained in these IT systems. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of certain of these price changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to prices maintained in these IT systems. The number of price changes the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these locations the firm selected for testing an automated control over the generation of customer invoices. The firm did not test the programming of this automated control or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The sample size that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these locations the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these locations the firm's substantive procedures to test these sales deductions consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm used data to develop its expectations but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these locations the firm's substantive procedures to test these sales deductions consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not evaluate these differences beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2305.21)

For certain revenue the issuer used a service organization to fulfill certain customer orders and the remaining customer orders were fulfilled by the issuer. The issuer recognized this revenue based on the date when delivery occurred. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over these delivery dates. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

For certain revenue the issuer used a service organization to fulfill certain customer orders and the remaining customer orders were fulfilled by the issuer. The issuer recognized this revenue based on the date when delivery occurred. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used these delivery dates in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test these delivery dates beyond comparing the dates to system-generated reports. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on rates automatically applied to various transaction types and volumes. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of changes to these rates. The firm did not test the aspect of this control that addressed whether all applicable rate changes were made and appropriately applied to the corresponding transaction types and volumes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report. The issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report. The issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the accuracy of the issuer's disclosures related to standalone selling prices under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report. The issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data or reports the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on the expected cost plus a margin approach which included significant assumptions related to the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's reviews of the estimated standalone selling prices including the significant assumptions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on the expected cost plus a margin approach which included significant assumptions related to the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimated standalone selling prices was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. (AS 2501.16)

For one type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's identification and evaluation of contract terms that could affect revenue recognition. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. For certain of the transactions selected for testing the firm did not obtain and evaluate the customer contract to assess whether revenue was appropriately recognized. (AS 2301.08)

For another type of revenue the issuer used models to estimate certain contractual adjustments. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of these models. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the output of these models. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For another type of revenue the issuer used models to estimate certain contractual adjustments. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of these models. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue from one of its products net of rebates and other sales incentives that it estimated based on certain historical data. The firm did not sufficiently test the completeness of these data because it did not test whether these data included all contractual rebates and other sales incentives owed to the customer. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's procedures to test the accuracy of certain other issuer-produced data the firm used in its substantive testing of certain of this revenue consisted of selecting a sample of items for testing. The sample sizes the firm used in these substantive procedures were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these transactions because its procedures were limited to comparing the transactions to information from the same system from which the transactions were selected. (AS 2301.08)

For certain revenue the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of monthly revenue compared to the corresponding prior-period revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The relative standalone selling prices were determined based in part on the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts it offered its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review and approval of the selling price data used to determine the standalone selling prices. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate exceptions identified for certain items that were selected for testing. (AS 2201.44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The relative standalone selling prices were determined based in part on the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts it offered its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review and approval of the selling price data used to determine the standalone selling prices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a system-generated report that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm selected for testing a control over the automated recognition of certain revenue when electronic delivery occurred. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the electronic delivery dates used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts with customers that included either standard or nonstandard terms. Certain contracts included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's identification and evaluation of contracts with nonstandard terms. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain information that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this revenue and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include this additional material weakness.

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts with customers that included either standard or nonstandard terms. Certain contracts included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's accounting for variable consideration included in contracts with standard terms. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this revenue and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include this additional material weakness.

During the year the issuer received a one-time payment in connection with a contract modification that it recognized as revenue. The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's accounting for this revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this revenue and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include this additional material weakness.

The firm's testing of certain automated controls over revenue at these business units was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration or programming of these controls or perform other procedures to test these controls that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For the first business unit the firm identified control deficiencies related to the issuer's review of sales prices that were applied to certain customer orders and used to recognize revenue. The firm identified and tested various compensating controls that it believed would mitigate these deficiencies. The firm did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the risk of material misstatement related to the accuracy of these sales prices. (AS 2201.68)

For the second business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's comparison of sales prices invoiced to the customer order. For electronically received customer orders the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the data included in the customer orders that were used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

For the second business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's comparison of sales prices invoiced to the customer order. For manually received customer orders the firm did not assess the effect of the same individual both entering and reviewing the sales prices in evaluating the design of the control. (AS 2201.42)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the transfer of data between certain of the issuer's revenue systems and the general ledger. For the first control the firm did not test the configuration or programming of certain automated aspects of the control or perform other procedures to test this control that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these automated aspects of the control were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm selected for testing two controls over the transfer of data between certain of the issuer's revenue systems and the general ledger. For the second control the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that the control owner used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

Certain of the issuer's contracts provided for the reimbursement of costs for services performed on behalf of its customers and the issuer did not recognize revenue from these services. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether these services were part of the issuer's performance obligation under its customer contracts that should have been recognized as revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test certain revenue deductions. The firm did not determine whether the expectation used in this substantive analytical procedure was based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The relative standalone selling prices were determined based in part on the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts it offered its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts that were used to determine the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis which included performing procedures to test the accuracy of information used in this analysis. The software-assisted analysis was designed to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash that the issuer recorded through journal entries. The firm however did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the cash data used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis which included performing procedures to test the accuracy of information used in this analysis. The software-assisted analysis was designed to test the relationships between revenue and cash that the issuer recorded through journal entries. The firm however did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the cash data used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record certain sales transactions based on data provided by the issuer. The firm did not identify and test any complementary user entity controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data provided to the service organization. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm used certain system-generated data to substantively test certain revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)