Browse
Search
2006 S Finance - Audit Contract for the June 30, 2006 Fiscal Year
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Contracts and Agreements
>
General Contracts and Agreements
>
2000's
>
2006
>
2006 S Finance - Audit Contract for the June 30, 2006 Fiscal Year
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2011 9:16:13 AM
Creation date
8/26/2010 2:26:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/16/2006
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Contract
Agenda Item
5i
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-16-2006-5i
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2006\Agenda - 05-16-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RECEIVED <br />SHAY 2 ~ 200 <br />6 <br />E. ~CAi. GOVERNMENT <br />CQMMfSSIQN <br />Attachment to the Peer Review Report of Cherry i8ekaert & Holland L.L.P. <br />Description of the Peer Review Process <br />Overview <br />Firms enrolled in the AICPA Center for Public Company Audit Firms (the Center) Peer Review <br />Program have their system of quality control periodically reviewed by independent peers. These <br />reviews are system and compliance oriented with the objectives of evaluation whether: <br />The reviewed firm's system of quality control for its accounting and auditing practice <br />applicable to non-SEC issuers has been designed to meet the requirements of the Quality <br />Control Standards established by the AICPA. <br />The reviewed firm's quality control policies and procedures applicable to non-SEC <br />issuers were being complied with to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of <br />complying with professional standards. <br />A peer review is based on selective tests and directed at assessing whether the design of and <br />compliance with the firm's system of quality control far its accounting and auditing practice <br />applicable to non-SEC issuers provides the firm with reasonable, not absolute, assurance of <br />complying with professional standards. Consequently a peer review on the firm's system of <br />quality control is not intended to, and does not, provide assurance with respect to any individual <br />engagement conducted by the firm or that none of the financial statements audited by the firm <br />should be restated. <br />The Center's Peer Review Committee (PRC) establishes and maintains peer review standards. <br />At regular meetings and through report evaluation task forces, the PRC considers each peer <br />review, evaluates the reviewer's competence and performance, and examines every report, Ietter <br />of comments, and accompanying response from the reviewed fum that states its corrective action <br />plan before the peer review is finalized. The Center's staff plays a key role in overseeing the <br />performance of peer reviews working closely with the peer review teams and the PRC. <br />Once the PRC accepts the Peer review reports, Letters of comments, and reviewed frets' <br />responses, these documents are maintained in a file available to the public. In some situations, <br />the public file also includes a signed undertaking by the firm agreeing to specific follow-up <br />action requested by the PRC. <br />Firms that perfoml audits or play a substantial role in the audit of one or more SEC issuers, as <br />defined by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board {PCAOB}, are required to he <br />registered with and have their accounting and auditing practice applicable to SEC issuers <br />inspected by the PCAOB. Therefore, we did not review the firm's accounting and auditing <br />practice applicable to SEC issuers. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.