Explorer

The issuer reported revenue from different types of services. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether each type of service represented a separate performance obligation. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue in excess of billings beyond comparing the balance to the subsidiary ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test certain revenue beyond comparing it to the issuer's information system. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test a second type of revenue beyond obtaining evidence that the issuer received cash for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a third type of revenue the firm selected certain revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test those revenue transactions beyond obtaining evidence that the issuer received cash for the transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain receivables related to revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test liabilities related to revenue. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the allowance for doubtful accounts certain receivables related to revenue and liabilities related to revenue and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements.

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test a related liability account beyond obtaining a schedule of activity for the account for the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer should have disclosed disaggregated revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent a sample of positive confirmation requests by electronic mail and received responses by electronic mail certain of which were returned with exceptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent a sample of positive confirmation requests by electronic mail and received responses by electronic mail certain of which were returned with exceptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with the electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent a sample of positive confirmation requests by electronic mail and received responses by electronic mail certain of which were returned with exceptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the confirmations returned with exceptions the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the nature of those exceptions. (AS 2310.33)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts beyond obtaining the activity in the account for the year. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable beyond obtaining issuer-produced reports and reports from external sources. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately (1) identified the performance obligations for these arrangements; (2) determined the standalone selling prices; and (3) allocated the transaction price to each separate performance obligation based on the standalone selling price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test this revenue beyond obtaining invoices bank statements purchase orders and/or contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test the related contract receivables and liabilities. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two types of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The sample sizes the firm used in these substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample sizes including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of the above two types of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met its performance obligations prior to recognizing revenue beyond obtaining invoices contracts and/or cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · To test a fourth type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions from one month. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions. (AS 2315.24)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the disclosures related to revenue beyond comparing total revenues in the disclosures to the statement of operations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining the subledgers to test accounts receivable and customer deposits. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized revenue from two of its business units based in part on labor hours recorded in a timekeeping system hosted by a service organization. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm was unable to obtain a service auditor's report regarding the effectiveness of the service organization's controls for the year under audit. The firm identified and tested various compensating controls that it believed would mitigate its inability to obtain a service auditor's report. The firm did not identify that the control owners used labor hours in the performance of these compensating controls that were obtained from this timekeeping system. (AS 2201.68)

The issuer recognized revenue from two of its business units based in part on labor hours recorded in a timekeeping system hosted by a service organization. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used labor hours from this timekeeping system in its testing of this revenue and related accounts. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these labor hours. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. The issuer recognized certain revenue from one of its business units over time based on units completed to date relative to total contractual units. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 had been met in determining revenue recognition. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain of this revenue was appropriately recognized because the firm only reviewed one customer change order. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the accuracy of this revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue journal entries and related support. 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 firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue journal entries and related support. The firm did not test the aspect of this control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of certain information used to record revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of contract setup within the issuer's IT system. The firm did not test the aspect of this control that addressed the accuracy of contractual units and rates. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For another business unit the issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. Certain of this revenue included revenue from contract modifications that had not yet been approved by customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue recognition for certain contracts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners 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 firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For another business unit the issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. Certain of this revenue included revenue from contract modifications that had not yet been approved by customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue recognition for modified contracts. The firm did not test the design of the aspects of this control related to unapproved contract modifications. (AS 2201.42)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For another business unit the issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. Certain of this revenue included revenue from contract modifications that had not yet been approved by customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether unapproved contract modifications were accounted for in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For another business unit the issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. Certain of this revenue included revenue from contract modifications that had not yet been approved by customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged a specialist to assist it in estimating the amount of revenue to be recognized from certain unapproved contract modifications using various significant assumptions. The firm did not (1) evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or by the issuer (2) test the accuracy and completeness of information produced by the issuer that was used by the company's specialist and (3) evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8a-c; AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of allowances for accounts related to certain revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue and related accounts 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 recorded revenue net of customer sales incentives and returns. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to one business unit: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the sales incentive reserve. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the (1) reasonableness of the sales incentive reserve and (2) accuracy and completeness of certain information used to determine the sales incentive reserve. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer sales incentives and returns. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to one business unit: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of sales returns. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of return information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer sales incentives and returns. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to one business unit: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report produced by the issuer that it used in its substantive testing of the sales incentive reserve. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer sales incentives and returns. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to one business unit: · The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's sales return reserve was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for the method used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The firm selected for testing a control over the issuer's review of the accuracy of pricing information used to record revenue at this business unit. 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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts at this business unit 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 a second business unit the firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's sales incentive and sales return reserves was to examine transactions that occurred after year end. The firm did not evaluate whether the audit evidence obtained was sufficient including whether the evidence supported or contradicted these estimates. (AS 2501.28)

The issuer used service organizations to process and/or record transactions for revenue and related accounts and the firm used certain information including delivery information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of these accounts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and/or completeness of certain of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)