Is your organization getting the most from your procurement department? Public sector procurement has more demands to meet than other sectors – deliver products/projects on budget, to specifications, adhering to government policies and regulations, while delivering quality products/performance that will benefit its citizens. Purchasing is no longer considered a clerical function. Today, purchasing agents are subject to emerging technologies, increasing product diversity and choice, environmental concerns, and a new emphasis on quality and best value, not just lowest price. The top ten issues in the procure to pay cycle are:
Insufficient outreach to vendors
Lowering of bonding requirements
Burdensome administrative requirements
Insufficient segregation of procurement approval and receiving duties
Lack of cross-department evaluation of vendor proposals
Inconsistent management and designated authority levels
Organizations are unaware of procurement process times – from start of requisition until vendors are paid
Procurement activities are not aligned with overall organizational activities
Too many sign offs/approvals
If any of these issues sound familiar, or your organization has not reviewed its procurement function in a while, you run the risk that your procurement strategies are inconsistent with organizational needs, which can result in paying higher prices for the goods and services required to run your agency, insufficient number of competitive bids, or worse, violating your grant or service agreements.
IntelliBridge Partners has the expertise to improve the procure to pay cycle through business process reviews, risk assessments, and performance audits. If you would like help with your procurement department, please contact Greg Matayoshi at [email protected].
10 Preliminary Implementation Steps That Will Supercharge Your Action Plan
GASB 87 readiness
With an effective date within the next year for some governments (i.e., as soon as January 1, 2020, for governments with a calendar year ending December 31, 2020) – the countdown has begun for planning for the impending changes to accounting and reporting for leases.
Under these new rules, the recording of leases, including assumptions, will significantly impact financial statement amounts and disclosures. Because governments use a variety of leasing arrangements to stabilize cash flows and reduce risk and uncertainty, the new requirements have strong accounting and financial reporting implications requiring a readiness plan. But first, why are these changes occurring?
The backstory on GASB 87
It is important to have some context for the impending changes. The new statement was created because leasing guidance for state and local governments, as we know it, predates GASB’s existence. Because of this fact, the GASB’s conceptual framework was not taken into consideration, which includes definitions of assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources. The updated guidance for lease accounting has rectified the situation, which is currently underreporting the economics of a lease transaction.
The new lease accounting standards will replace the current operating and capital lease categories with a single model for lease accounting, based on the concept that leases are a means to finance the right to use an asset.
Lease assessment timeline
With the effective date approaching quickly, the time to prepare is NOW!
Taking the lead
The MGO GASB 87 Implementation Team has created a readiness assessment tool providing 10 preliminary implementation questions for consideration in your planning. These will not only prepare you for the new lease accounting standards, but may uncover matters that were not previously considered or identified.
This 10-step Implementation Plan is more of a general guide designed to assist you in identifying issues and help you organize your implementation process, rather than being an all-inclusive plan with specific technical guidance. As you evaluate the leases that are unique to your organization, you will most likely find that further research and analysis is necessary to ensure proper accounting considerations. For example, if you operate an airport and have aviation leases with air carriers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, it will be necessary to understand how the regulated lease provisions affect your contracts, especially in situations where there are multiple lease components.
Preliminary implementation steps
Step 1. Know where to find your leases.
It may seem obvious, but the first step in managing your leases is knowing where they are and, specifically, who is responsible for maintaining them. A good place to begin is with organizational charts. This is an example for a municipal government.
Depending on how your government contracts services, leases may be held centrally within the Finance Department or they may be decentralized in a multitude of departments, and possibly even managed by various entities. Keep in mind that most leases that were previously expensed as operating leases will need to be accounted for as a lease obligation under the new standards, including option years if you are reasonably certain they will be exercised.
After the “where” has been established you can move into the “what” by identifying the universe of leases for your organization. This can be accomplished by evaluating the general ledger, reviewing contract files and surveying purchasing and operating departments, which leads to assembling a task force and formulating a plan for data collection.
Step 2. Assemble a Lease Implementation Task Force.
Identify people who are critical to a successful implementation. Consider including operational and legal staff who are already familiar with existing lease terms and conditions. The Lease Implementation Task Force should remain in place until the action plan for lease implementation is finalized. The benefits are many, including a collective think tank to evaluate and apply appropriate accounting treatment to each class of leases. This task force may also be important to developing internal policies and procedures, such as whether or not a materiality threshold is appropriate, and whether or not lease accounting software should be utilized to manage the lease database. Furthermore, the implementation of the lease accounting standards is only a start, proper accounting treatment, including the remeasurement of the initial lease liability when certain lease changes have occurred and the evaluation of new leases subsequent to implementation, will be an on-going requirement.
Step 3. Identify the plan for lease data collection.
Converting your lease data into an organized structure is not without its challenges. You may encounter incomplete lease files, “hard copy versions only” of certain lease agreements, voluminous amendments, and the need to translate data from lease agreements into databases. This is all part of the process leading to a successful implementation of the new standards. Once you complete the database, you’ll then need to properly classify the leases.
Step 4. Understand what types of leases do NOT apply to GASB 87.
While a multitude of leases will be impacted by the new GASB 87 standards, there are several classifications that are not subject to GASB 87, including: intangible assets (such as computer software licenses); biological assets, including timber, plants and animals; inventories; service concession arrangement contracts; leases in which the underlying asset is financed with outstanding conduit debt; and supply contracts, such as power purchase contracts. Additionally, nonexchange agreements are exempt: for example, in the case of leasing property to a school district for a reduced price of $1/year for 30 years.
In the end, it is all about evaluating the leases subject to GASB 87.
Step 5. Understand what criteria to use when evaluating leases.
After eliminating leases that are not subject to GASB 87, as identified in Step 4, further classification of leases is necessary to ensure that the appropriate accounting treatment is applied. Short-term leases, contracts that transfer ownership, leases of assets that are investments (lessors only), and certain regulated leases (lessors only) all qualify as leases, but have differing accounting treatments than the typical long-term, noncancellable leases.
Step 6. Determine the lease term.
A lease term is defined as the period during which a lessee has a noncancellable right to use an underlying asset, plus any extension periods and options that are reasonably certain to be exercised. The GASB wants organizations to consider extension periods and options, so there is no incentive to structure initial lease terms to avoid meeting the definition of a lease. Since month-to-month leases that continue into a holdover period until a new lease is signed are not part of the noncancellable period or a formal extension, there is no basis in the standard for currently including them. Let’s discuss the calculation of the lease liability.
Step 7. The lease liability should be measured at the present value of payments expected to be made during the lease term.
The lessee should initially measure the lease liability at the present value of payments expected to be made during the lease term, which includes the following elements:
Fixed payments
Variable payments that depend on an index or a rate, initially measured using the index or rate as of the commencement of the lease term
Variable payments that are fixed in substance
Amounts that are reasonably certain of being required to be paid by the lessee under residual value guarantees
The exercise price of a purchase option if it is reasonably certain that a lessee will exercise that option
Payments for penalties for terminating the lease, if the lease term reflects the lessee exercising (1) an option to terminate the lease or (2) a fiscal funding or cancellation clause
Any lease incentives receivable from the lessor
Any other payments that are reasonably certain of being required based on an assessment of all relevant factors
For additional guidance and context to these bulleted items, refer to GASB 87 paragraph 21. In order to determine the present value, you may need to develop the discount rate.
Step 8. Consider how to calculate the lease liability for contracts with multiple components.
Proper classification of leases is not always straightforward when both lease and nonlease components are included in the same contract. What if a building lease has utilities and common area maintenance costs? The answer can be found in guidance covering contracts with multiple components, which identifies maintenance services as a nonlease component. What if a lease involves multiple assets and those assets have different lease terms? The answer can also be found in guidance covering contracts with multiple components, which provides that each asset should be accounted for as a separate lease component. Many rental leases embed the cost of utilities and common area maintenance into the lease payment. Contract components should be separated using the best estimate available based on observable information. If it is not practicable to estimate these separate costs, then account for the contract as a single lease unit (see GASB 87 paragraph 67).
Step 9. Measurement of the leased asset.
The initial measurement of the leased asset should be based on the measurement of the associated lease liability. In the case of contracts with multiple components, the value of the underlying leased asset is not always clearly stated in the agreements, and many lease agreements will not cover the life of the leased asset. Some leased assets may involve proprietary information that lessors are not willing to share. Therefore, determining the value of the underlying asset is not always straightforward in these cases. Whenever possible, identifying comparable assets that are sold in a market transaction is an important part of the process. You can then utilize the knowledge of internal or external experts who can provide a basis for an estimate.
You are now ready for the final step.
Step 10. Define the threshold for recording leases in the financial statements.
Unfortunately, while GASB provides explicit guidance on capitalization thresholds for capital assets, it does not specify any such consideration for lease obligations. Using a threshold may help you avoid recording leases that are immaterial and avoid a mismatch with leased assets that are too small to capitalize. A good starting point may be to use the capitalization thresholds that are already established for your organization. Once you determine your initial criteria for establishing leases, verify that it does not exclude significant leases from application of the new standard. You can revise these thresholds as needed. Now that we have provided you with our 10-step GASB 87 readiness plan, you should have a fairly good idea what your next steps will be.
So you can plan for compliance, this is an excellent time for the MGO GASB 87 Implementation Team to review your leases. This will ensure that you are ready to take the most important step: Implementation. In addition, we have put together an online readiness assessment that helps you evaluate where you stand in the implementation process.
About the Author:
David Bullock is a thought leader in MGO’s State and Local Government practice. An Assurance and Government Advisory Services Partner with 25 years of professional experience, he currently oversees numerous audits and other services to governmental organizations throughout California. In 2018, David was appointed to the AICPA State and Local Government Expert Panel. He is also on the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) Financial Reporting Model Reexamination Task Force. In 2018, he was appointed to the California Society of CPAs’ Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee. His numerous presentations cover topics related to generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the GASB, and auditing standards, promulgated by the AICPA and the GAO.
Alternative Engagement Types: Consulting Services, Agreed-Upon Procedures, and Performance Audits
By Scott P. Johnson, CPA, CGMA Partner, Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP State and Local Government Advisory Services
I have spent most of my professional career over the past 35 years serving government agencies and focusing on performance improvement, accountability, and transparency. I recognize the need for continuous monitoring and oversight in the public sector to ensure performance, public accountability, and stewardship of public resources. While participating on a number of professional panels and presentations throughout my career, I have often stated that I embraced the auditor and have welcomed them with open arms into the organizations that I had responsibility over. Why? Because I see auditors as an independent and objective lens, adding value to review and evaluate performance and to make recommendations for improvement. The organizations I have had the pleasure to work for took public accountability very seriously and supported performance improvement as a means to better serve their communities and stakeholders.
Much like a traditional CPA firm can provide different types of services related to an entity’s financial statements, i.e., audit, review, or compilation, based on need, when government agencies are considering an independent evaluation of performance of their programs or operations, the CPA firm’s advisory or consulting arm can step in and offer a number of engagement types based on the agency’s unique needs: consulting services engagements, attestation engagements (e.g., agreed-upon procedures), and performance audits. It all depends on if, and at what level, assurance is needed. The primary driver of what type of product should be considered is typically based on, for instance, issue complexity, taxpayer concerns or expectations, statute requirements, or increased need for transparency on the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. While the driver of the engagement may differ, time constraints and budget are also determining factors.
This is the first article in a three-part series focusing on performance audits. The primary focus of this article is to discuss the differences of the three aforementioned types of engagements – consulting services, agreed-upon procedures, and performance audits – and to provide guidance when a performance audit might be an option.
It is important to identify the differences between (1) performance audits, (2) consulting services engagements, and (3) agreed-upon procedures attestation engagements. On numerous occasions throughout my government service career and also while serving clients, questions have come up regarding the objectives sought, the scope of the engagement, and the engagement type when considering an evaluation of performance for a particular program or area of operations. Each of these engagements differ in purpose and reporting requirements, as well as potential cost, as shown below in Figure 1.0. These engagements are governed by different standards, formal reports are not always required for each, and independence is not always required (i.e., consulting services).
Performance Audits Defined
Performance audits are defined as engagements that provide objective analysis, findings, and conclusions to assist management and those charged with governance and oversight to, among other things, improve program performance and operations, reduce costs, facilitate decision making by parties with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action, and contribute to public accountability. *1
Furthermore, GAGAS states that management and officials of government programs are responsible for providing reliable, useful, and timely information for transparency and accountability of these programs and their operations. Legislators, oversight bodies, those charged with governance, and the public need to know whether (1) management and officials manage government resources and use their authority properly and in compliance with laws and regulations; (2) government programs are achieving their objectives and desired outcomes; and (3) government services are provided effectively, efficiently, economically, ethically, and equitably. *2
Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP)
Based on my experience, it usually comes down to identifying a few factors that determine the engagement. First, the agency must determine the purpose and scope of the work, specifically what questions they would like to have answered. These questions can be broad or very narrow. For example, in an AUP, management may make an assertion about whether a subject matter is in accordance with, or based on, established criteria that is the responsibility of a third party and hires a CPA to add credibility to that assertion by performing specific procedures to test compliance with the criteria. If an agency needs to know something very specific and wants an independent party to perform specific procedures and tell them what was found, then an AUP is appropriate. However, an AUP report does not provide recommendations, an opinion, or conclusion about whether the subject matter is in accordance with, or based on, the criteria, or state whether the assertion is fairly stated. While the agency may want to use an AUP, some key steps that are taken in consulting engagements and performance auditing, such as planning, are not required in an AUP engagement. Also, risk is not assessed in developing the scope, nor does the auditor use a risk-based approach, which is required in a performance audit. Finally, in an AUP, auditors do not perform sufficient work to be able to develop elements of a finding or provide recommendations.
1 See Paragraph 1.21 of GAGAS. 2 See Paragraph 1.02 of GAGAS.
Consulting Services Engagement vs. Performance Audit
For a consulting services engagement or performance audit, the initial questions are then turned into the objectives of the engagement. If the agency wants an objective review of operations or a program to assist them in making decisions, for example, to assess the management of specific funds, and wants findings and recommendations to improve operations, then the agency should discuss the options of a consulting services engagement or a performance audit. From here, the decisions are truncated. The agency needs to consider whether the report is for an internal audience, such as governing officials, management, or staff, or an external audience, e.g., a regulatory agency or the public. If the communication is intended for internal use, then a consulting services engagement with observations and recommendations may suffice. For these engagements, findings, recommendations, and a conclusion is provided to assist management in decision making. Or, an independent third party, such as a CPA or an internal auditor, may be asked to answer the engagement’s objectives to an external audience, in which case a performance audit may be more appropriate due to the need for an independent, objective report that can withstand scrutiny and is subject to peer review. Sometimes there isn’t a choice; some agencies are bound by the government code or local ordinance to conduct audits under GAGAS.
Performance audits are typically the more costly engagement type of the three, given the amount of work required to conduct an audit and adhere to stringent standards. As we’ll explore in later articles, performance audits conducted under GAGAS provide the highest level of assurance among the three options, based on the level of work required. These audits involve developing the required elements of a finding and the documentary evidence required for planning, fieldwork, and reporting. The amount of work involved is much greater than in consulting services engagements, where observations and recommendations will suffice. Consulting services engagements are not audits and, therefore, offer no assurance. Similarly, in attestation engagements, where only specific procedures are performed, no assurance is provided. *3
Conclusion
Having been on both sides of deciding what engagement to recommend, either for an agency I worked at or to a client, it’s important to discuss the level of work required for each engagement type, the number of hours required to do the work under the appropriate standard within a reasonable time period, and the available budget. Finally, and most importantly, clients should understand that performance audits and consulting services engagements each have their place and serve unique purposes. A performance audit offers independence and objectivity at a step above a consulting services engagement, and might be the best option if a rigorous audit of a program or agency is needed. This is where the consideration of the agency’s need is paramount. There may not always be the budget or time available to conduct a comprehensive performance audit, nor a need for an in-depth evaluation or a legislative requirement to do so. In these instances, a consulting services engagement is a good option, especially when time and budget are factors. A consulting services engagement can provide a sufficient report with recommendations and advice. However, it’s important to make the agency aware of the limitations of non-audit services. In addition, the audience of the final report product and any regulatory requirements should strongly influence the decision-making process.
Forthcoming articles in this series will drill down and focus in more detail on the professional standards associated with performance audits as compared to other types of engagements, “why” an agency would want a performance audit instead of a consulting engagement or an agreed-upon procedures engagement, when a performance audit would be recommended, what key factors should be considered, and what are the expectations of the audience of the report. The third article in this series will focus on the reporting elements of a performance audit and a sample performance audit report.
*3 Attestation engagement standards are covered in GAGAS Chapter 7, and include agreed-upon-procedures, reviews, and examination engagements. Attestation examinations have the highest level of assurance, as an opinion is given; not so for the others. Auditors may use GAGAS in conjunction with other professional standards such as American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), or Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) standards. For financial audits and attestation engagements, GAGAS incorporates by reference for AICPA Statements on Auditing Standards and Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements. In addition, the AICPA promulgates the consulting standards. AICPA standard committees have taken the position that only the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) sets performance audit standards.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION CONSIDERED
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States – July 2018 Revision (effective for performance audits beginning on or after July 1, 2019; effective for attestation engagements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2020; early implementation is not permitted)
United States General Accounting Office. Best Practices Methodology – A New Approach for Improving Government Operations. May 1995
About the Author
Scott Johnson has 35 years of experience in government administration, with a focus on successfully overseeing internal service operations including; debt management, information technology, human resources, municipal finance, and budget. He has led large and mid-sized operations for California government agencies including the cities of Santa Clara, Milpitas, San Jose, Oakland, and Concord and the County of Santa Clara. Scott is a past president of the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) and a member of the AICPA Government Performance and Accountability Committee (GPAC). He is currently a partner with Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), leading the Advisory Services sector specializing in State and Local Governments, based out of California. He welcomes any questions or comments via email: [email protected].
Greta MacDonald, MPA – Special recognition is given to Ms. MacDonald for her contributions and research for this article. Ms. MacDonald is a Director with MGO in the State and Local Government Advisory Services division. She has over 17 years of experience conducting over 35 performance audits in accordance with GAGAS, which is her specialization area.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the GAO, AICPA, or Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP.
