The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRFP 2026131-02 Professional Audit Services - Q&A 2026-10-02RFP 2026131-02 Professional Audit Services Questions and Answers October 2, 2026 Q1. Why is County bidding the audit? A1. The County is requesting proposals for its annual audit services as a matter of best practice. Q2. Any disagreements with the FY25 auditors?/Has there been any signiﬁcant issues or disagreements with the current audit ﬁrm (e.g., timing, communications, audit adjustments), and is the current ﬁrm being invited to submit a proposal? A2. There have been no matters of disagreement with the FY25 auditors, nor any signiﬁcant issues or disagreements. The current ﬁrm is invited to provide a proposal. Q3. Will the prior year auditor be invited to propose? A3. Yes. Q4. What was the 2025 audit fee (inclusive of ﬁnancial statement audit, Single Audit, and PA DHS Agreed-Upon Procedures fees)?/ Can you provide the audit fee for the prior year, or an expected budget range for the services requested in this RFP? A4. The fee for the 2025 audit, including ﬁnancial statement and Single Audit was $113,559. Q5. Is the scope of work in this RFP consistent with prior years? A5. Yes, the scope is consistent. Q6. How long has the Tyler accounting system been in place at Franklin County? Does it provide the information necessary to support the ACFR and all of its supporting schedules? A6. The County implemented Tyler Munis in 1999. The County does not currently prepare an ACFR. Q7. Are there any plans to change the County’s accounting software in the near future? A7. No. Q8. Do the auditors typically obtain direct (view-only) access to the general ledger system? A8. Yes. Q9. To what extent are key documents (e.g., invoices, contracts, grant agreements, bank statements, and employee timesheets) available in electronic form, or are they maintained as hard copies? A9. All information provided by the Fiscal Dept. as part of the audit is in electronic format. Information from other departments may be hard copies. Q10. What type of technical assistance does County typically need from the audit ﬁrm? For example, in terms of the implementation of a new accounting standard, would we be auditing the implementation, or, providing technical guidance/examples/answering questions? Does the County require any assistance with pension accounting (GASB 68), OPEB (GASB 75), Leases (GASB 87), SBITAs (GASB 96), or Compensated Absences (GASB 101), the conversion of the fund-level ﬁnancial statements to the government-wide ﬁnancial statements, or anything similar? A10. Fiscal staff have historically handled the implementation of new standards internally with limited guidance from the independent auditors. The audit ﬁrm would audit the implementation as part of their normal procedures. Fiscal staff prepare the accounting entries and notes to meet GASB reporting requirements, including pension, leases, SBITAs, compensated absences, and preparation of government-wide ﬁnancial statements. Q11. We see the anticipated selection date of the audit ﬁrm listed in the RFP as December 30, 2026. Given that the audit ﬁrm would be getting a later start than what normally be the case (i.e., no ability to have done preliminary ﬁeldwork during 2026 for the 2026 year end), will this have any bearing on the audit schedule for FY26 in 2027? A11. Please provide an alternative timeline for the FY26 audit as necessary in your response for the County’s consideration. Q12. When are trial balances and the County prepared ﬁnancial statements and supporting documents ready and available for audit? A12. Trial balances are typically ready by early to mid-May. Supporting documents are available at that time. Q13. Were there any audit adjustments? If so, can you provide a copy of those adjustments?/ How many adjusting journal entries were proposed by the auditors for the December 31, 2025, audit? A13. There have not been any audit adjustments required. Q14. Is it possible to estimate the number of hours the County would expect from the audit ﬁrm per year for routine questions, the implementation of new GASB statements? A14. It is not possible to estimate as we have not been billed separately for this. Assistance requested has been limited. Q15. Regarding the component unit ﬁnancial statements, which are audited by (an)other audit ﬁrm(s) (“Group Audit”), does the County require that that audit be provided in ﬁnal form by a certain date, so as to give sufficient time to incorporate that information into the County’s ACFR? A15. Yes, we typically request a ﬁnal component unit audit to be provided by June 15. Q16. On average, when is the actuarial information for the County’s pension plan and OPEB plan received from the actuary? Who is/are the actuary(ies) for the plan? A16. The actuarial information is typically received in May or June. The County’s actuary for both pension and OPEB is Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company. Q17. It wasn’t totally clear to us, based on the RFP, as to whether the County prepares the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), or, is the auditor involved in some way with its preparation? A17. County Fiscal staff prepare the SEFA. Q18. Approximately how much time did the prior year auditors spend working on the County’s FY25 audit? (i.e., number of individuals and number of weeks involved, best estimate, please). A18. The County is not able to estimate this as the number of staff onsite and remote has varied, in addition to the ﬁrm’s internal review process. Q19. Does the County have an Internal Audit function? If so, has this work been leveraged in prior year ACFR audits to any extent? A19. The County Controller’s office has an internal audit function. The County does not complete an ACFR. Q20. Does the County have a preference as to whether the audit is conducted “on site” or “remotely?”/ To what extent has the existing audit been performed onsite vs. remotely, and are there expectations or preferences regarding onsite versus remote ﬁeldwork for this engagement? A20. Please provide information in your proposal that addresses onsite vs remote work as part of your workplan. Q21. How important is it to the County that the audit ﬁrm have an office in Franklin County? A21. The County does not have a preference for its audit ﬁrm to have an office in the County. Q22. FY25 Single Audit reported approximately $11M in federal expenditures, with 2 programs tested as major for Single Audit purposes. We see the RFP anticipates approximately $12M in federal assistance in FY26. Do you anticipate a similar scenario in terms of program composition, Type A programs, as compared with FY25? A22. Yes, the County anticipates a similar program composition and Type A programs for FY26. Q23. Was a “management letter” issued in connection with the FY25 audit? If so, would the County be willing to share a copy?/ Was a Management Letter issued for 2025? If yes, can we obtain a copy? A23. No management letter has been issued to the County. Q24. Does the County anticipate any signiﬁcant issuances of debt, or undertaking of signiﬁcant capital projects, in the years 2026-2029? (To whatever extent you might be able to provide some insight here, it would be helpful)./ Was there any new debt issued or signiﬁcant leases entered into by the County during ﬁscal year 2026? A24. The County has refunded a portion of its 2018 bond in 2026. There are no signiﬁcant capital projects currently underway. Future projects for 2026-2029 are unknown at this time. A portion of the 2018 bond was refunded with no new money included. No signiﬁcant new leases have been identiﬁed. Q25. Have any known or suspected instances of fraud or signiﬁcant control deﬁciencies been identiﬁed in the past 2-3 years? If so, please describe their nature and if resolved. A25. No, there have been none. Q26. Are there any contingencies or legal matters that could affect future ﬁnancial statements? A26. The County is not aware of any current contingencies or legal matters that could affect future ﬁnancial statements. Q27. Has the current auditor historically provided any additional services or billed for work outside the original audit? A27. Yes, there have been additional services provided as needed for speciﬁc projects and that were performed under a separate contract. Q28. Are there any accounting functions that are outsourced to third-party providers? A28. No, there are no accounting functions outsourced. Q29. Have there been signiﬁcant operational changes during the current year or expected for next year? Examples would include any software changes, changes in accounting personnel, or new or expanded federal or state programs. A29. No, there have not been any signiﬁcant operational changes during the current year and none are expected for next year.