DOC

Appendix D - CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF

By Jean Kelley,2014-05-19 23:27
8 views 0
4.1 Did the auditors follow the OIG's quality control policies and procedures for attestation engagements (e.g., use of checklists, independent report

Appendix D

    Checklist for Review of Attestation

    Engagements Performed by the Office of

    Inspector General

This Appendix includes guidance for reviewing the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) attestation

    engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards (GAS), Chapter 6, and the

    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA’s) Statements on Standards for Attestation

    Engagements (SSAE). When an auditor conducts an attestation engagement under generally accepted

    government auditing standards (GAGAS), the engagement must be conducted in accordance with the

    SSAEs and additional GAGAS standards. This appendix is not intended to replace auditor judgment, and

    while comprehensive, the peer review team may also wish to consult with other guidance as warranted.

    That guidance includes the SSAE and the AICPA’s peer review checklists for attestation engagements

    (aicpa.org/members/div/practmon/systemreview.asp). In this regard, there are three AICPA checklists

    covering AICPA requirements and GAGAS: (1) Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagement Checklist PRP ?20,900; (2) Other Attestation Engagement Checklist PRP ?21,000; and (3) Supplemental Checklist for

    Review of Agreed Upon Procedures and Other Attestation Engagements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book) July 2007 Revision PRP ?21,120A.

    OIG UNDER REVIEW:

    NAME OF ENGAGEMENT:

    CONTROL NO.:

TYPE OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENT:

     _____ EXAMINATION

     _____ REVIEW

     _____ AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

    REVIEWER(S):

    Appendix D

    Page 1 of 13

DATE COMPLETED:

Appendix D

Page 2 of 13

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    1. General Standards

    Note: In assessing compliance with the GAGAS general standards for independence, professional judgment,

    and competence on individual attestation engagements, the reviewer(s) should consult the OIG’s policies

    and procedures with respect to what is expected to be included in the attest documentation to demonstrate compliance. It is important to keep in mind that certain documentation may be maintained

    on an organization-wide level and evidence of compliance may not be found in the documentation for

    individual attestation engagements. That being said, when assessing the attest documentation, the

    reviewer should be alert to issues related to compliance with the general standards for independence,

    professional judgment, and competence and make further inquiry as appropriate.

     1.1 Independence (GAS 3.02-3.15) ? Did the OIG determine that auditors assigned to the attestation engagement are free of personal impairments to independence? (GAS, 3.07)

     ? If there were potential or actual personal impairments to independence identified prior to or during the attestation engagement, did the OIG satisfactorily resolve the conflict? If the OIG was unable to resolve the impairments, did the audit report include a modified GAGAS compliance statement? (GAS, 3.09) ? If specialists were used, did the attest team assess their independence? If impairments were identified, did the attest team decline to use their work? (GAS, 3.05)

    ? Did the OIG determine that auditors

    assigned to the attest team are free of

    impairments to external independence in

    both fact and appearance? (GAS, 3.10)

    ? Did the OIG determine that it is free of

    impairments to organizational

    independence in both fact and appearance?

    (GAS, 3.12 3.15)

    ? For impairments to independence identified

    after the report was issued, did the OIG

    assess the impact on the attestation

    engagement and notify management and

    other interested parties of the impact? Appendix D (GAS, 3.06) Page 3 of 13

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    1.2 Professional Judgment (GAS, 3.31-.39)

    ? Did the auditors exercise appropriate

    professional judgment in planning and

    performing the attestation engagement, and reporting the results? (GAS, 3.31) ? Did the auditors exercise reasonable care

    and professional skepticism; apply

    professional knowledge, skills, and

    experience; and maintain independence,

    objectivity, and credibility in assigning

    staff, defining scope of work, gathering and

    analyzing evidence and documentation, and

    evaluating and reporting the results to

    ensure that the work and staff comply

    professional standards and ethical

    principles? (GAS, 3.32-.37) ? Did the auditors document significant

    decisions affecting the objectives, scope,

    methodology, findings, conclusions, and

    recommendations resulting from

    professional judgment? (GAS, 3.38)

    1.3 Competence (GAS, 3.40-3.49) ? Did the auditors collectively possess

    adequate professional competence (the

    blending of education and experience) for

    the tasks required? (GAS, 3.40-.42) ? Did the auditors appear knowledgeable or

    to have accessed appropriate knowledge in

    subject matter and criteria of the attestation

    engagement and have sufficient skills

    appropriate for the work being performed?

    (GAS, 3.43)

    ? Did the auditors have sufficient knowledge

    and understanding of AICPA general

    standard related to criteria, AICPA

    attestation standards (and related

    Statements on Standards for Attestation

    Engagements) related to fieldwork and reporting, and the supplemental standards

    of GAS? (GAS, 3.44.45) Appendix D

    Page 4 of 13 ? Did the auditors meet the 24- and 80-hour

    continuing professional education

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    requirements of Government Auditing

    Standards, as applicable? (GAS, 3.46.48)

    ? If external specialists were used, did the

    auditors assess the professional

    qualifications of the specialists and

    document their findings and conclusions?

    (GAS, 3.49)

    1.4 Quality Control (GAS, 3.63) ? If the auditors relied on another audit

    organization’s work, did the auditors

    request and receive a copy of and consider

    the impact of the other audit organization’s

    most recent external quality control review

    report and any letter of comments?

    1.5 Criteria (GAS, 6.03)

    ? Did the auditors meet the following

    requirements related to criteria? ? Suitability of criteria. (AT 101.24) The

    criteria used had the following

    attributes:

    o ObjectivityCriteria should be free

    from bias;

    o MeasurabilityCriteria should

    permit reasonably consistent

    measurements, qualitative or

    quantitative, of subject matter;

    o CompletenessCriteria should be

    sufficiently complete so that those

    relevant factors that would alter a

    conclusion about subject matter are

    not omitted;

    o RelevanceCriteria should be

    relevant to the subject matter. ? Availability of criteria. (AT 101.33)

    The criteria was available in one or

    more of the following ways:

    o Available publicly;

    o Available to all users through Appendix D

    Page 5 of 13 inclusion in a clear manner in the

    presentation of the subject matter or

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    in the assertion;

    o Available to all users through

    inclusion in a clear manner in the

    auditors’ report;

    o Well understood by most users,

    although not formally available;

    o Available only to specific parties.

    2. Fieldwork Standards

     2.1 Was there evidence that the auditors

     considered the following in planning the attestation engagement: (AT 101.45) ? Criteria to be used?

    ? Preliminary judgments about attestation

    risk and materiality for attest purposes? ? The nature of the subject matter or the

    items within the assertion that are likely

    to require revision or adjustment? ? Conditions that may require extension

    or modification of attest procedures? ? The nature of the report expected to be

    issued?

    2.2. Did the auditors establish an understanding

    with entity management regarding the

    services to be performed for the engagement? In this regard, did the auditors obtain written

    acknowledgement or other evidence of the

    entity’s responsibility for the subject mater or

    the written assertion as it relates to the

    engagement objectives? (GAS, 6.06)

    Did the auditors communicate, in writing, to the appropriate officials of the entity’s

    management, those charged with governance,

    and to the individuals contracting for or

    requesting the attestation engagement the

    following information, where applicable: ? The nature, timing, and extent of planned

    testing and reporting on the subject matter

    Appendix D or assertion about the subject matter? Page 6 of 13 (GAS, 6.07a)

    ? The level of assurance the auditor will

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    provide? (GAS, 6.07b) ? Any potential restriction on the auditor’s

    reports? (GAS, 6.07c) ? If the engagement was terminated before

    it was completed and a report was not

    issued, the reasons for termination?

    (GAS, 6.08)

    2.3 Did the auditors evaluate whether the entity

    took appropriate corrective action to address

    findings and recommendations from previous

    engagements that could have a material effect

    on the subject matter or the assertion of the

    attestation engagement? (GAS, 6.09)

    2.4 Did the auditors use the information gathered

    in regards to findings and recommendations

    from previous engagements in assessing risk

    and determining the nature, timing, and extent

    of current engagement work? (GAS, 6.09)

    2.5 For examination-level attestation

    engagements, did the auditors obtain a

    sufficient understanding of internal control

    that is material to the subject matter in

    planning the engagement and designing the

    engagement procedures to achieve the

    objectives of the attestation engagement?

    (GAS, 6.10.12) Note: This is not required

    for review-level or agreed-upon procedures engagements.

    2.6 In planning examination-level attestation

    engagements, did the auditors design the

    engagement to provide reasonable assurance

    of detecting fraud, illegal acts, or

    noncompliance with provisions of contracts

    or grant agreements that could have a material

    effect on the assertion or subject matter and

    document the related risk factors?

    (GAS, 6.13a)

    2.7 For review-level or agreed-upon procedures engagements, if information came to the

    Appendix D auditors’ attention indicating that fraud, Page 7 of 13 illegal acts, or violations of provisions of

    contracts or grant agreements may have

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings occurred, did the auditors consider whether

    the possible fraud, illegal acts, or violation of

    provisions of contracts or grant agreements

    could materially affect the results of the

    engagement? (GAS, 6.13b) 2.8 For review-level or agreed-upon procedures

    engagements, if the auditors determined that

    the possible fraud, illegal acts, or violation of

    provisions of contracts or grant agreements

    could materially affect the results of the

    engagement, did the auditors extend the audit

    steps and procedures, as necessary, to (1) determine if fraud, illegal acts, violations

    of provisions of contracts or grant

    agreements, were likely to have occurred and,

    if so, (2) determine their effect on the results

    of the attestation engagement? (GAS, 6.13b)

    2.9 For all levels of attestation engagements, if

    auditors became aware of indications of

    possible abuse that could be quantitatively or

    qualitatively material, did the auditors apply

    procedures to determine the potential effect

    on the subject matter or other data significant

    to the engagement objectives?

    (GAS, 6.13c-.14)

    2.10 If deficiencies in internal control, fraud,

    illegal acts, or violations of contracts or grant

    agreements were identified, did the auditors

    plan and perform procedures to develop the

    findings to contain the elements of criteria,

    condition, cause, and effect or potential effect,

    as applicable to the attestation engagement

    objectives? (GAS, 6.15)

    2.11 Does the attest documentation contain

    sufficient information to enable an

    experienced auditor having no previous

    connection with the attestation engagement to

    understand from the documentation the nature,

    extent, and results of procedures performed;

    the evidence obtained and its source; and the

    auditors’ significant judgments and

    Appendix D conclusions? (GAS, 6.21) Page 8 of 13

    2.12 Does the attestation engagement

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    documentation contain the following:

    ? The objectives, scope, and methodology

    of the attestation engagement?

    (GAS, 6.22a)

    ? The work performed to support significant

    judgments and conclusions, including

    descriptions of transactions and records

    examined? (GAS, 6.22b) ? Evidence of supervisory reviews, before

    the attestation engagement report is

    issued, of the work performed that

    supports findings, conclusions, and

    recommendations in the report?

    (GAS, 6.22c)

    ? The auditors’ consideration that planned

    attestation engagement procedures are

    designed to achieve the engagement

    objectives when engagement evidential

    matter is dependent on computer

    information systems, is material to the

    engagement objective, and the audit

    organization is not relying on the

    effectiveness of the internal control over

    those systems that produced the

    evidence? (GAS, 6.22d) ? The rationale for determining the nature,

    timing, and extent of planned attestation

    procedures; the kinds and competence of

    available evidence produced outside a

    computerized information system or plans

    for direct testing of data produced from

    such a system or both; and the effect on

    the attestation report if evidence does not

    afford a reasonable basis for achieving

    the engagement objectives? (GAS, 6.22d)

    2.13 Did the auditors obtain written

    representations from management when

    appropriate, and were the applicable elements

    included in the representation letter? The

    reviewer should refer to AT 201.37-.38,

    401.10h, 501.52, or 601.68 for requirements

    and guidance related to representations for the Appendix D

    Page 9 of 13 various types of attestation engagements.

    2.14 If the auditors requested a representation

    APPENDIX D: CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS PERFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Yes No N/A Remarks and Findings

    letter and management refused to sign such a

    letter, did the auditors disclose in the report

    the inability to obtain representations, or take

    other appropriate actions? (AT 201.39, 501.53,

    or 601.69)

    2.15 If the auditors did not comply with applicable

    GAGAS requirements (mandatory

    requirements and presumptively mandatory

    requirements where alternative procedures

    were not sufficient to achieve the standard’s

    objectives), did the attestation documentation

    include the departure, its impact on the

    engagement, and the impact on their

    conclusions? (GAS, 6.23)

3. Reporting Standards

     3.1 Did the auditors’ attestation engagement report conform with the following AICPA

    reporting standards: (GAS, 6.30) ? The auditors identified the subject matter

    or the assertion being reported on and

    state the character of the engagement in

    the report?

    ? The auditors stated the auditors’

    conclusion about the subject matter or the

    assertion in relation to the criteria against

    which the subject matter was evaluated in

    the report?

    ? The auditors stated all of the auditors’

    significant reservations about the

    engagement, the subject matter, and, if

    applicable, the assertion related thereto in

    the report?

    ? The auditor stated in the report the report

    is intended for use by specific parties

    when appropriate?

    Note: The reviewer should consult

    (1) AT 101.84-.86 for required elements of

    reports for examination-level attestation engagements, (2) AT 101.88-.90 for required elements of reports for review-Appendix D level attestation engagements, and Page 10 of 13

    (3) AT 201.31 for required elements of

    reports for agreed-upon procedures

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com