Assignment:A company appointed Netrika to conduct forensic accounting for fabrication work conducted in the premises. The assignment was triggered as the vendor raised a dispute regarding his payment.
Findings:It is noted that scope of work has been amended five times after allocation of work to the vendor. There was also change in basic drawing of the work. We noted that all running bills were approved based on some work completed and material lying at site. No physical verification of work completed was conducted during the time of approval of running bills. During the assignment, some work was not conducted due to change in basic drawing of work though work was completed according to running bills as material was lying at site. The unused material was taken back by the vendor as work was amended. However, the running bills were approved basis material brought at site. When vendor raised final bill, it was much beyond as expected by our client. Our client carried out physical verification of the work and found many variations which they could not map. We carried out physical measurement of the work completed by the vendor and found variations in actual quantity and quality installed in the premises.
Conclusion:As some work was never happened in the premises, payments made for such work were reversed and supervisor approved such work was identified as responsible for making excess payment to the vendor. We also identified control gaps in bill approving process and suggested best practices to be followed for such processes.