Independent practitioner
Verification may be required before claim submission.
SSRS 4400 (Revised)
The engagement may involve agreed-upon procedures rather than a conventional audit.
Scope can be extensive
Some claims may require verification over the full value claimed.
What does the practitioner typically review?
The practitioner’s work will generally focus on whether the expenditure claimed is properly supported, paid, and consistent with the conditions set out in the STB Letter of Offer.
01
Qualifying expenditure
Verification of expenditure claimed and whether costs relate to the approved project.
02
Payment Tracing
Checking that qualifying costs were actually paid and supported by appropriate payment evidence.
03
Approved cost categories
Reviewing whether costs fall within approved qualifying categories and applicable exclusions.
04
Qualifying period
Checking whether costs were incurred within the relevant qualifying period.
05
Assets & Equipment
Reviewing relevant fixed assets and project equipment and, where required, verifying their existence.
06
Factual findings
Reporting factual findings arising from the prescribed procedures.
For larger projects: verification can involve substantial work where the claim covers multiple vendors, large contracts or significant equipment expenditure.
A key distinction
100% verification may be required
One important distinction for certain STB grant claims is that the practitioner may be required to perform procedures over the full value claimed.
This differs from a conventional audit approach where sampling may be used.
As a result, the scope and professional fee can be affected by the total value of the claim, the number of underlying transactions, the complexity of the project, the number of assets requiring verification, the quality of the supporting records, and the number of exceptions identified during the review.
Why this matters
A full-value verification requirement can make the engagement considerably more extensive than businesses initially expect.
Preparing supporting records early can help reduce avoidable delays during the practitioner review.
The practitioner may be required to confirm that qualifying costs were actually paid and are supported by appropriate payment evidence.
✔
Actual cash outflow
Payment evidence helps establish that expenditure represents an actual cash outflow and is not merely an accounting entry.
✔
Supporting evidence
Relevant payment evidence may need to be traced to the expenditure being claimed.
✔
Large projects
For large projects, payment tracing can form a significant part of the engagement.
A cost being incurred does not automatically mean it is eligible
Businesses should review the claim carefully before final submission.
01
Approved Project
Does the claimed expenditure relate directly to the approved project?
04
Exclusions
Does the cost comply with exclusions in the Letter of Offer?
02
Qualifying category
Does the cost fall within an approved qualifying cost category?
02
05
Grant conditions
Has the expenditure been treated in accordance with the applicable grant conditions?
03
Qualifying period
Was the expenditure incurred within the relevant qualifying period?
Asset verification
Physical verification of assets
Where the grant involves hardware, equipment, technology or other assets, the practitioner may also be required to verify the existence of the relevant assets and agree them to the company’s records.
For asset-intensive projects, this can make the engagement significantly more extensive, particularly where equipment is installed across multiple locations or operational areas.
Asset-intensive projects
Consider the number of assets, their locations and the records available to support verification when planning the claim review.
Reporting
Reporting under SSRS 4400
Where the engagement is performed under SSRS 4400 (Revised), the practitioner reports the factual findings arising from the agreed procedures.
This is different from a statutory audit.
Not a statutory audit
The practitioner does not express an audit opinion on the organisation’s financial statements as a whole.
The report is focused on the specific procedures required for the grant claim.
Planning ahead
Why early preparation matters
Businesses should avoid leaving the practitioner review until immediately before the claim deadline.
01
Large claim value
Higher claim values can mean a larger volume of verification work.
02
Full-value verification
100% verification can require considerably more supporting documentation and testing.
03
Multiple suppliers
Numerous suppliers and transactions can increase the time required for payment and cost verification.
04
Equipment & assets
Extensive equipment or physical asset verification may require additional coordination.
05
Resolve issues early
Early engagement allows sufficient time to identify and resolve issues before final submission.
How Vertex Assurance PAC can help
Independent grant verification for STB-funded projects
Vertex Assurance provides independent grant verification and Agreed-Upon Procedures services for businesses with STB-funded projects.
We can review the relevant STB Letter of Offer and claim requirements, assess the expected scope of work, and advise on the practitioner procedures required before the claim is submitted.
For larger or more complex projects, we can also help identify the likely extent of verification work at an early stage, including whether the engagement may involve full-value testing, payment verification or physical asset verification.
Start with a scope review
Send us the relevant grant documents for an initial scope review.