Post Audit Survey : CAE
Name of Audit:………………………………………………………
To assist in maintaining the efficiency of the audit process and the quality of the audit report it is important to
seek the views of Chief Audit Executive, as client, after an audit has been finalised.
This survey is designed to assist the Treasury Internal Audit Function to collect the views of the Chief Audit
Executive regarding the audit. This survey questionnaire will assist the Chief Audit Executive/Treasury
Internal Audit Function in selecting future service providers.
Importance Scale
Response
Performance Scale
Response
1
Low importance
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Medium importance
2
Disagree
3
High importance
3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
Importance
Performance
Comment
CAE Review of Service Provider
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The service provider personnel who
undertook the audit demonstrated a level of
skill and experience commensurate with
their seniority, their resumés and
references.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
I was satisfied the personnel who worked
on the audit spent the proportion of time on
it proposed in the detailed scope.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Where any conflict of interests arose, the
service provider declared them at the
planning stage (or as soon as they were
identified by service provider).
1
2
3
The service provider adhered to the
requirements of the contract and the
Internal Audit Manual.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The service provider understood the
purpose and objectives of the audit or
review and supplied an approach that met
or (for higher score) enhanced these.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The service provider added value in the
initial and /or detailed scoping phases of the
review.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The service provider adhered entirely to the
plan, cost and deadlines set out in the
detailed scope, or to changes agreed in
writing.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Post-audit Survey: CAE Sept 2015
1 2 3 4 5
(or, N/A)
1
Importance
8
Performance
The service provider was on time for
meetings with me and the audited area, took
notes or recordings and could summarise
accurately what s/he was told
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The service provider demonstrated
appropriate people management skills in
dealing with the audited area.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
If a communication difficulty or other issue
arose with the audited area, the service
provider escalated it promptly to the Audit
Program Manager or to me.
1
2
3
If a serious issue emerged at any stage (eg
a major unknown risk, allegations of
corruption), the service provider notified me
immediately.
1
2
3
12
The review was completed and the report
submitted in a timely manner.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
13
The report was well structured, clearly
written and covered all areas agreed in the
detailed scope.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Recommendations were unambiguous,
useful, realistic, cost effective, clearly based
on evidence arising from adequate testing,
and capable of being monitored.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The close-out meeting was informative.
The service provider clearly articulated
which changes, if any, would be made to
the draft report as a result, and in the case
of any others, why not.
1
2
3
The service provider made him/herself
available to discuss the report with the
Audit and Risk Committee at the meeting
where the report was presented, gave a
clear summary of the findings and
recommendations and their relationship to
Treasury’s risks, and satisfactorily
answered the Committee’s questions.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The audit enhanced Treasury’s
understanding of its risks and/or controls
and offered useful risk mitigation strategies
which, properly implemented, would bring
the audited area into line with Treasury’s
risk appetite.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
18
I was happy with the performance of the
service provider’s team.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
19
I would use those personnel for future
projects.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
Post-audit Survey: CAE Sept 2015
Comment
1 2 3 4 5
N/A
1 2 3 4 5
(or, N/A)
1 2 3 4 5
2
Importance
Performance
20
Based on this review I would recommend
the service provider (company) to others.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
21
The service provider supplied working
papers in a timely manner.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
22
The service provider’s working papers met
the quality standards and properly mirrored
their findings.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Comment
CAE Review of Audited Area
23
The audited area was easy for the Audit
Program Manager to contact and was
prompt to arrange meetings for the service
provider.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Staff of the audited area arrived promptly
for prearranged meetings and gave serious,
complete and accurate answers.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
Staff of the audited area agreed to provide
reasonable pre-meeting and/or follow up
materials, and then did so in a timely
manner.
1
2
3
If the audited area experienced any
problems, whether professional or
interpersonal, with the service provider
during the audit, the manager of the area
promptly brought this to my attention for
resolution.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
At the exit and close-out meetings the
audited area showed evidence of having
read the draft report with appropriate
attention.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
The audited area’s management responses
to the report recommendations were
unambiguous, well informed, engaged
seriously with the findings, and were
realistic in relation to the timing and
resources promised.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
29
Management responses were received
within the agreed timeframe.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
30
The manager of the audited area (or
delegate) made him/herself available to
discuss the report with the Audit and Risk
Committee at the meeting where the report
was presented, and satisfactorily answered
their questions.
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5
24
25
26
27
28
Signature:________________________
Post-audit Survey: CAE Sept 2015
1 2 3 4 5
Date:__________________
3
The space below should be used to explain any specific ratings, or to provide additional comments to
improve future internal audits.
Comments:
Survey last reviewed: September 2015
Post-audit Survey: CAE Sept 2015
4