Benefits
Know what you’re up against
Understand what your awards are subject to with help interpreting Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) and Uniform Guidance requirements.
- Single, Compliance, and DCAA award audit preparation
- GAGAS analysis
- Uniform Guidance compliance assessment
Fix issues before they’re findings
Identify gaps early, correct deficiencies, and prepare disclosures to build auditor trust.
- Audit dry runs
- Documentation development & preparation
- Disclosure preparation
- Policy & procedure development
Get an audit ally
Leverage your dedicated ally when connecting with auditors to handle questions, shape responses, and ensure requests stay reasonable.
- Real-time auditor liaison
- Auditor questionnaire responses
Close findings, open doors
Demonstrate your credibility by implementing corrective actions that strengthen your compliance operation to lead to future funding opportunities.
- Corrective action plan development
- Corrective action plan implementation
Related
success stories
Take a deeper dive and discover how we’ve helped clients with Audit Preparation & Resolution.
Fortune 100 Global Mobility Manufacturer
Passed audit without compliance findings and transformed underperforming department
Read moreFAQs
Can’t find what you’re looking for?
What types of audits should federal award recipients expect, and what triggers them?
Federal award recipients may be subject to several distinct audit types depending on their funding profile and organizational structure. The single audit, required under 2 CFR 200 Subpart F, applies to non-federal entities expending $1,000,000 or more in federal award funds in a fiscal year. Compliance audits assess adherence to award-specific terms and conditions, while DCAA audits apply to defense contractors and certain research organizations operating under FAR-based contracts. Audits may be triggered by expenditure thresholds, risk-based selection by a cognizant federal agency, or referrals stemming from prior findings. Understanding which audit framework governs each award is the essential first step in preparing an effective response.
How should organizations assess their readiness before a federal award audit begins?
Audit readiness begins with a structured gap analysis against the applicable regulatory frameworks, whether Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200), or award-specific terms and conditions. Organizations should evaluate the adequacy of their internal controls, adherence to compliance policies and procedures, the completeness of their cost documentation, and the consistency between financial reports and general ledger records. Audit dry runs that simulate auditor information requests and testing procedures are among the most effective tools for surfacing deficiencies before they become formal findings. Identifying and remediating gaps prior to fieldwork reduces audit cycle time and materially strengthens the organization’s credibility with the federal awarding agency.
What is the strategic value of proactive disclosure during the audit process?
Proactive disclosure is one of the most underutilized tools in federal award audit management. When organizations identify potential compliance gaps or cost accounting inconsistencies before an auditor does, voluntary disclosure demonstrates good faith and operational transparency. Under GAGAS standards, auditors are required to assess the reliability of an organization’s internal control environment, and a documented history of self-identification and correction is a meaningful positive indicator. Disclosure preparation that is accurate, well-supported, and appropriately scoped can reframe the auditor relationship from adversarial to collaborative, reducing the likelihood of expanded testing and materially influencing the tone of the audit findings report.
How should organizations manage auditor communications and information requests during fieldwork?
Auditor information requests, commonly issued as PBCs (Prepared by Client lists) or auditor questionnaires, require careful management. Responses that are incomplete, inconsistent, or overly broad can extend fieldwork timelines and invite additional testing. Organizations benefit from designating a single point of contact who understands both the technical requirements of the audit framework and the operational context of the award. A dedicated auditor liaison ensures that requests are interpreted correctly, responses are appropriately scoped, and communications are documented. Former auditors who understand GAGAS, 2 CFR 200, and DCAA audit programs are particularly effective in this role because they understand what the auditor is actually looking for and why.
What does an effective corrective action plan require, and how does it affect future funding?
A corrective action plan (CAP) is the formal mechanism through which an award recipient responds to audit findings and demonstrates a credible path to remediation. Under 2 CFR 200.511, auditees are required to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings and a CAP that addresses each finding with specific corrective steps, responsible parties, and target completion dates. A well-constructed CAP goes beyond procedural compliance: it signals to the cognizant federal agency and prospective sponsors that the organization has the institutional capacity to identify, address, and prevent recurrence of compliance deficiencies. Organizations that implement CAPs effectively and on schedule build a documented performance record that supports continuation funding and competitive reselection.
How are evolving audit standards reshaping what federal sponsors expect from award recipients in 2026?
Federal audit expectations have grown more rigorous in the wake of the 2024 revisions to 2 CFR 200 and increased scrutiny from Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) across major federal agencies. Auditors are placing greater emphasis on the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, the adequacy of subrecipient monitoring, and whether cost allocation methodologies are consistently applied and documented. For organizations managing research portfolios with both federal contracts and grants, the intersection of GAGAS, FAR Part 31, and 2 CFR 200 creates layered compliance obligations that require coordinated audit preparation strategies. Recipients who treat audit readiness as a continuous operational discipline, rather than a pre-audit sprint, are consistently better positioned for favorable outcomes.
Audits in check, missions on track
Prepare, respond, and resolve with a partner who helps you pass award audits while reinforcing trust with current and future federal sponsors.