Explorer

With respect to Revenue which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing other controls over certain revenue. The firm tested these controls through an interim date but did not perform any procedures to update the results of its testing from that interim date to year end. (AS 2201.55)

With respect to Revenue which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The performed other substantive analytical procedures as part of its testing of certain revenue. The firm used data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectations but did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

The principal auditor instructed the firm to perform specific substantive procedures to address the identified risks of material misstatement related to revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm did not perform certain procedures for each transaction selected for testing and did not perform certain other procedures that it was instructed to perform. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Revenue which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain revenue the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the (1) reconciliation and review of certain data used to recognize revenue and (2) reconciliation and review of billed amounts prior to the recording of revenue. For the items selected for testing the firm did not test the management review aspects of these controls involving the review of (1) data used to recognize revenue and (2) billed amounts prior to the recording of revenue. (AS 2201.44)

For one category of revenue that comprised six types of revenue arrangements the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a monthly comparison by project type of certain financial information and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not evaluate whether certain thresholds the control owners used were sufficiently precise to detect misstatements that could be material. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data that the control owners used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For four types of these revenue arrangements the firm selected for testing a control that included the review of invoices. The firm did not test the procedures the control owners performed to determine whether the services were provided for the revenue recorded for three of these types of revenue arrangements. (AS 2201.44)

In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data that the control owners used in the performance of this control for one of these three types of arrangements. (AS 2201.39)

For the other two types of revenue arrangements the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the review and approval of journal entries. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the data that the control owners used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

For another category of revenue the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of revenue transactions greater than an established monetary threshold. The firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue transactions that were less than this established threshold. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer generated certain revenue from its distribution of electricity that its customers purchased from other energy companies. The firm selected for testing a control over the volumes of electricity distributed by the issuer. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the volumes of electricity that the issuer's customers purchased from other energy companies that were used in this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used these volume data in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data as discussed above. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control over certain revenue that consisted of a comparison by contract of actual profit to forecasted amounts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the data and assumptions used to develop the forecasted profits that were used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the notes related to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 235 Notes to Financial Statements regarding its revenue recognition accounting policy for certain revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify that at the time of the audit the issuer's recognition of certain revenue from arrangements with multiple elements that consisted of software license and maintenance deliverables was not in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 985-605 Software Revenue Recognition. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over the accounting for these arrangements and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain contracts 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 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 recognized certain other revenue from contracts based on costs incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the costs incurred to date for these contracts including whether these costs were allowable under the contracts. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain other revenue from contracts based on costs incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the costs incurred to date and whether the costs incurred were allowable under the contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts that provided for the reimbursement of (1) employee-related costs which the issuer calculated using the time incurred by its employees to perform certain services under these contracts and (2) other expenses incurred by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of the employee-related costs and other expenses. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess (1) the appropriateness of the time used to calculate the employee-related costs and (2) whether the other expenses were reimbursable under these contracts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts that provided for the reimbursement of (1) employee-related costs which the issuer calculated using the time incurred by its employees to perform certain services under these contracts and (2) other expenses incurred by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of the employee-related costs and other expenses. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the time and expense information that the control owners used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts that provided for the reimbursement of (1) employee-related costs which the issuer calculated using the time incurred by its employees to perform certain services under these contracts and (2) other expenses incurred by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the amounts recorded as revenue were reimbursable under these contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts that provided for the reimbursement of (1) employee-related costs which the issuer calculated using the time incurred by its employees to perform certain services under these contracts and (2) other expenses incurred by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used the issuer's time information in its substantive testing of this revenue. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain other types of arrangements based on the amount of time incurred to provide professional services and the rates in the agreements with its customers. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the time information that the issuer used to calculate this revenue. (AS 2201.39)

For one business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the comparison of the invoice price for the sale of a product to the issuer's supporting documentation of the approved price for that product. The firm identified exceptions in the operation of this control and concluded without evaluating the effect of these exceptions on the operating effectiveness of the control that these exceptions did not result in a control deficiency. (AS 2201.48)

For the other business unit the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether customer orders were processed using approved prices. (AS 2201.39)

For each of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of reviews of manual journal entries related to revenue. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of these controls beyond inspecting documents that included signatures or other notations that indicated reviews performed as part of the controls had occurred. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer entered into contracts with customers at certain of its locations that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. The firm excluded from the scope of its audits a large number of these locations. The firm did not (1) evaluate whether the risks of material misstatement the firm identified related to revenue recognized over time for the in-scope locations also applied to the excluded locations and (2) consider whether specific risks of material misstatement related to the issuer's use of centralized service centers to determine the amount of revenue to be recognized over time existed at the excluded locations. (AS 2101.11 and .12; AS 2201.B10)

The firm used the issuer's time information in its substantive testing of this revenue. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into contracts with customers at certain of its locations that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. For two locations the firm selected for testing controls that included the review of the estimated costs to complete. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer entered into contracts with customers at certain of its locations that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. For the two locations discussed above the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete for contracts open at year end beyond (1) comparing in the aggregate for all contracts estimated costs to complete at year end to the estimated costs at the subsequent month end and (2) comparing the gross margin for certain contracts completed during the year to the initial estimated margin for these contracts. (AS 2501.07)

Revenue for certain of the issuer's sales transactions was processed by one of the issuer's information-technology ('IT') systems. This system automatically assigned predefined codes to each transaction based on the customer and type of service being provided. These codes were used by the issuer's billing system to record the related revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether these codes were appropriately assigned by the IT system. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain sales transactions that were manually entered into the IT system for processing. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain of the issuer's operations the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of monthly comparisons of actual revenue by distribution channel and by product category to budgeted amounts. In testing the operating effectiveness of this control the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to investigate identified variances and determine whether items identified for follow up had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether this revenue was appropriately recognized based on the contractual terms and conditions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over this revenue that consisted of the review of an analysis of estimated gross margin by contract. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over this revenue that consisted of the review of an analysis of estimated gross margin by contract. The firm did not test the aspect of this control related to the control owner's assessment of whether the costs incurred to date included in the analysis were accurate complete and allowable under the contracts. (AS 2201.42 and. 44)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete open contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the costs incurred to date and whether the costs incurred were allowable under the contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into arrangements with multiple elements that consisted of software and professional services. The issuer determined that professional services represented separate performance obligations and recognized revenue related to these services separately from the software revenue. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine that professional services represented separate performance obligations. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's treatment of professional services as separate performance obligations was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue transactions related to services provided to its customers; one of these systems was maintained by an external service organization. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to the IT system that was maintained by an external service organization the firm selected for testing a control over access by employees of the service organization to this system and identified control exceptions related to inappropriate access for numerous employees. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the effect of these exceptions on the effectiveness of this control because its evaluation was limited to inquiring of management of the service organization regarding access privileges. (AS 2201.48)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on information about the quantities sold and delivery dates that was provided by a third-party administrator. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used the quantities sold and delivery date information in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over (as discussed above) the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on information about the quantities sold and delivery dates that was provided by a third-party administrator. The following deficiencies were identified: · 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)

The issuer recorded certain other revenue based on the completion of services provided to its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that revenue was recognized before the performance obligation for these services was satisfied. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recorded certain other revenue based on the completion of services provided to its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation for these services was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

For certain revenue related to services that the issuer provided to its customers the issuer used two IT systems to process and record revenue transactions. The issuer assigned service codes to each customer based on the prices for the services provided and the specific terms of the customer arrangement. These systems calculated and recorded revenue using those service codes. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risks that the service codes used to record revenue did not represent the services ordered and terms agreed to by the customer. (AS 2201.39)

For certain revenue related to services that the issuer provided to its customers the issuer used two IT systems to process and record revenue transactions. The issuer assigned service codes to each customer based on the prices for the services provided and the specific terms of the customer arrangement. These systems calculated and recorded revenue using those service codes. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the remainder of this revenue the firm selected for testing a control that included an aspect that addressed the appropriateness of the service codes used to record revenue. The firm however did not test this aspect of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)