Explorer

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by two service organizations. The firm used information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For three types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two of these types of revenue the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual terms for certain of the transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used multiple service organizations to host and/or maintain IT systems that the issuer used to initiate process and/or record transactions related to various types of revenue at five other business units. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain reports produced by the service organizations that the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 2301.08)

For three types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two of these types of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared reports that the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

For three types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these types of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether certain performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of and a misstatement in certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm used an issuer-prepared schedule in its substantive testing of a revenue disclosure. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this schedule. (AS 1105.10)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For three of these types of revenue the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual terms for certain of the transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For three of these types of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these types of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied over time on a straight-line basis. The firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether recognizing revenue for multiple services as a single performance obligation recognized over time on a straight-line basis was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied over time on a straight-line basis. The firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the arrangements selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was being satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For revenue at one of these five business units the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions included in customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

For revenue at one of these five business units the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to this revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For revenue at another business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external information that it used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For revenue at another business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recorded this revenue net of certain deductions. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue for these business units the firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons and reviews of the (1) budget to actual results and (2) prior-period actual results to current-period actual results. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to investigate identified variances and determine whether items identified for follow up had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue for these business units the firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons and reviews of the (1) budget to actual results and (2) prior-period actual results to current-period actual results. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of the budget used in the operation of one of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information the firm used in its substantive testing including substantive analytical procedures. (AS 1105.10; AS 2305.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used various service organizations to host and/or maintain IT systems that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at one business unit. In its testing of controls over this account the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified control deficiencies related to various complementary user controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of user access to these IT systems. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies because it did not evaluate or fully evaluate the magnitude of the potential misstatements resulting from these deficiencies. (AS 2201.62 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to change management the firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's report described as necessary. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm identified various control deficiencies in its testing of controls. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies because it did not evaluate the magnitude of the potential misstatements resulting from the deficiencies. (AS 2201.62)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm identified multiple misstatements in its substantive testing. The firm did not evaluate whether the misstatements it identified should have had an effect on the firm's conclusion about the effectiveness of the issuer's controls. (AS 2201.B8)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls 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 firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the accuracy of pricing information used to record this first type of revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For a second type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected for testing a control consisting of the issuer's review of recorded revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the allocation of revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected for testing a control consisting of the issuer's review of recorded revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For two types of revenue at two business units one of which was affected by certain of the audit deficiencies discussed above the firm used certain issuer-produced information in its substantive testing of this revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used several information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue at one business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed a risk of material misstatement related to the occurrence of revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used several information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue at one business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of price list changes processed through certain of the issuer's IT systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

For certain revenue which was affected by the ITGC testing deficiencies discussed above the issuer recognized revenue when a product was shipped. The firm selected for testing various automated controls over revenue recognition but did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed whether shipment had occurred before revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For one type of revenue the firm selected the revenue transactions from the issuer's largest customers for testing but did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining portion of this revenue. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether certain performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For both of these types of revenue certain of the issuer's arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's allocation of revenue to separate performance obligations was based on the relative standalone selling prices. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used several information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue at one business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of price list changes processed through certain of the issuer's IT systems. The firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing these controls. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by a service organization. The firm used certain information produced by this service organization in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a second type of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether revenue was recognized in conformity with certain relevant requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a second type of revenue the firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used in its substantive testing of this revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For a third type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used several information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue at one business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether pricing was accurately applied in the recording of revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on labor costs incurred to date relative to total estimated labor costs to complete the contract. The following deficiencies were identified: · For projects designated as complete the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to record revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because it did not evaluate (1) whether the performance obligations were satisfied and (2) certain evidence that suggested these projects were not complete. (AS 2501.10; AS 2810.03)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on labor costs incurred to date relative to total estimated labor costs to complete the contract. The following deficiencies were identified: · For projects designated as in-process the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's significant assumption related to total estimated labor hours because it did not evaluate significant differences between this assumption and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on labor costs incurred to date relative to total estimated labor costs to complete the contract. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain differences it identified in its testing of labor costs incurred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a third type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions included in customer contracts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For revenue at three business units one of which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent. (AS 2301.08)