- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
Can someone clarify what are the things to be considered before tendering and what are to be consudered after tendering (but before acceptance)?
And why “establishing whether pre conditions exist” are done after acceptance and not before?
Thank u!
Logistics, reputation, ability, independence, timing, constraints, conflict of interest, experience, do-we-want-the-job, profitability …….
“establishing whether pre conditions exist” where’s that quote from? Is it something that I have written?
Hi good morning Mike!
1) There were two parts to the first part of my question. I think tgere is a distinction of things to consider before sending outvthe proposal to the client and also before accepting. Please clarify.2) pre conditions was found in an article on march 2011 by the examiner.
Hi Romes
This is awkward! When a prospective client (or even an existing client) invites an audit firm to tender I imagine that, in practice, the firm will initially consider whether they are interested and, if they aren’t, then they would respond to the invitation and turn it down.
In that process of deciding, the partners should have considered all those points that I listed in my last post. I find it difficult to imagine what matters the partners should further consider after having had their tender accepted and before they accept nomination to be appointed!
There was a case recently – within the last 6 months – where KPMG were appointed replacing PwC. After tendering and winning the tender, KPMG realized that they were not “independent” so having tendered successfully and after having been awarded the contract, KPMG had to
step aside and so PwC got the job backBut that surely has to be an exception
Another matter lying beyond my limited imagination is why would the newly appointed auditor consider pre-conditions only AFTER appointment.
It beats me – what does the examiner say in the 2011 article?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.