This is a very good question that is often asked by many. The simple answer is that audits are not necessarily redundant (though they may contain some redundant elements). By design, audits are intended to be independent of an organization’s normal processes, controls, policies and procedures. Rather than duplicate what has already been done, an audit is intended to review and evaluate information from a much different perspective than the people who are primarily responsible for the project.
In addition, audits are typically conducted by evaluating information that is different from what has already been submitted as part of the billings or change orders. Audits also provide an organization with the ability to “look behind the iron curtain” and obtain information that may not otherwise be available.
We recognize that most organizations provide varying degrees of oversight for their construction projects and we believe that such oversight is important. Sometimes, effective oversight can prevent problems. Other times, it may not.
Unfortunately for Owners, the negative results of an audit (overcharges, fraud, problems, etc) are often indicative that project oversight is either inexperienced, ineffective or otherwise lacking. In addition, even with effective oversight, controls can be circumvented or unscrupulous contractors can take advantage of unsuspecting owners. Moreover, what is most surprising (and disturbing) to Owners is when audits identify problems on projects where good controls and effective oversight were believed to exist.
