Skip to main content

Think you know how to R.E.V.I.E.W. defined costs?

Assurance basics

Reimbursable contracts are pretty commonplace these days on major construction programmes. Of course, they get tweaked, but in the main NEC Option C and E contracts tend to be the backbone (currently) of reimbursing infrastructure projects in the UK. The basic clauses allow Project Managers (usually delegated to their Cost Managers) to inspect accounts and records of their choice in relation to defined cost (Cl52.2). Those suppliers being audited need to be helpful and transparent - that’s pretty much it.

And the audit side (if we dare call it that) is relatively simple too. Say you are asked to check some people costs – surely you just speak to your supplier and ask them to supply a few timesheets and back up some actual costs with payslips?

What could possibly go wrong?

Defined cost auditing is a bit like car maintenance. Whilst a good proportion of us might feel reasonably competent changing a tyre or topping up the anti-freeze, when the red light flashes up on the dashboard it’s usually time to get the experts in.

Our cars have become complex pieces of machinery, much like many NEC Option C or E contracts we see. It can be tempting to do your own repairs at home to save money, especially when there are hundreds of places online teaching you how to change your oil or replace your brake pads. But mostly, the risks far outweigh the money saved and if done incorrectly can result in even more costly repairs down the road.

It's the same with cost checking / verification / auditing / assuring costs * on complex open book contracts. Think of auditing a construction contract like DIY car maintenance. The basics are manageable but when that red light flashes on the dashboard suddenly auditing becomes hard.

* take your pick, all these words are loosely thrown around the industry

R.E.V.I.E.W

Having audited hundreds of NEC contracts, we know the importance of being qualified when faced with complex cost and commercial issues. We often see individuals or teams who are not qualified auditors or accountants struggling to know where to start reviewing costs. Sometimes what is required is a specialised and expert approach to how you review constructions costs.

In this latest series of help sheets, we will start to analyse how to spot the red flags signalling that costs require a deeper review, and more importantly what to do.

When we are faced with any cost area to verify, we try to focus our work around the R.E.V.I.E.W acronym. Much of this goes to the heart of smart or risk-based auditing. 

A cost type is only allowable if it passes the rules of the contract.

Rules are relatively straightforward when they rely on vanilla NEC clauses.

Significant complexity can be added in through the addition of Z clauses and scope information (often dropping down into multiple cost related processes/annexes or schedules).

Know your contract. 

Understanding the importance of the environment within which costs are presented is critically important. Key to this will be the internal controls around the financial accounting systems that process defined costs.

There are many other factors to consider though:

  • maturity of supplier organisation and their prior experience of open book contracts
  • people factors both client and supplier (experience / motivation / churn)
  • management integrity
  • nearby projects on differing reimbursement models
  • physical site conditions 
  • current disputes/with-holdings
  • current project performance
  • historic project reviews/audits 
  • assurance expectations of end client/funder

Auditing organisations often ignore the time needed to properly understand or assess the environment in which costs are captured.

Intelligent data analysis and visualisation are key tools to better understand how and where money has been spent.

The type of analysis will be heavily influenced by the rules and environment.

If it’s a simple contract, there will always be a “goto” analysis method to run and standard formulas used. A complex contract cost issue requires more bespoke and intelligent data analysis.

This is where many organisations struggle, the go-to place is all they ever know or use. 

A thorough understanding of the cost area being reviewed should emerge through the first three steps above.

This will help flesh out project specific risks that require review, over and above core transactions that under testing will provide wider assurance.

It is important when designing how to test these areas that the efficiency of the method used is considered.

The industry over relies on physical sampling of individual transactions, where better and broader assurance can often be obtained

  • analytical review
  • proof in total
  • computer assisted audit techniques

We regularly see examples of 100% tests of records i.e. timesheets.

We ask how often have you found an error? Frequently the answer comes back as never or rarely, yet the same testing is repeated month after month. We again ask why? Because we’ve always done it often comes back! Not because the rules of the contract demand it however!

Remember when sampling, it is important that your transactions selected are reflective of the wider population.

A good open, working relationship with the supplier being reviewed is essential to obtaining source documents backing up defined cost. Be prepared to:

  • sign off NDAs
  • share your assurance plan/terms of reference
  • work in accordance with supplier GDPR protocols
  •  flex your plan recognising people also have day jobs i.e. payslip testing works well for most suppliers about one week a month

When evaluating records, feedback observations or concerns to your supplier on a real time basis. It will always aid reporting that there are no nasty surprises.

Regularly check back in with your project management team and QS too. They may have useful views on the potential issues you are uncovering, especially regarding disallowed costs or value for money/benchmarking of rates. If things are wrong always try to understand why? What is the root cause of the issue? Control problem? Isolated error? Should you be widening your samples to better understand the problem?

All examinations should follow a robust and formal recording process.

This applies to consultants brought in from outside to review supplier costs (a given surely?), but perhaps more importantly sitebased teams i.e. QS’ checking records as part of their daily or month end procedures.

This documentation of what has been looked at, the reasons why and the results from it has significant importance in terms of:

  • leaving an audit trail of work completed and assurances obtained
  • assisting in the planning of follow-on or future reviews
  • providing the work papers to discuss with line managers on conclusions reached
  • providing the backbone of what needs to go into a report to a supplier

Did you find this useful?

Thanks for your feedback