Page 208 - DCOM509_ADVANCED_AUDITING

Unit 11: Introduction to Special and Efficiency Audit

Self Assessment Notes

Fill in the blanks:
9. There are profound differences between the private and ................................ sectors, as well
as similarities.

10. In determining the scope of an audit of ................................, auditors should consider all key
factors influencing the relationship between goods and services produced and the resources
used to produce them.
11. A results-oriented audit ................................ should be followed wherever possible, because
it can usually accomplish the audit objectives at least cost.
12. ................................ and capital resources are generally measured in dollars.
13. Efficiency information is necessary for ................................ to determine whether the level
of efficiency achieved meets an acceptable standard.
14. Auditing efficiency can directly or indirectly help departments and agencies to identify
................................ to provide more or better services at the same or lower cost.

15. ................................ is expressed as the percentage of the available capacity that is actually
used.

Task Study on how to Measure the Efficiency?



Case Study Government of Canada Building, Edmonton, Alberta

he Department of Public Works provides accommodation for federal public
servants. In 1970, DPW examined the option of integrating a new office building
Twith a proposed development by the City of Edmonton. Discussions with the City
and the Province of Alberta continued until 1983, when DPW was given approval to
acquire a parcel of land to construct a building that would accommodate the majority of
Edmonton-based federal public servants, create a “central federal presence”, and meet the
redevelopment needs of both the Province of Alberta and the City of Edmonton. In 1984,
DPW was given approval to sign a lease purchase agreement with a developer. The cost of
the project was reported to Treasury Board in terms of net present value at $152.2 million
in 1984.
In its 1985-86 Estimates report to Parliament on the cost of the project, DPW did not
include several significant facts, notably that a management agreement worth $34 million
over a 10-year period was an integral part of the agreement with the developers and that
the cost of land was $33.7 million. The Department has stated that its reporting format had
the agreement of the Office of the Comptroller General and the Treasury Board.
DPW had requested a number of developers to submit design and construction proposals
based on performance specifications. From the initial respondents, a short list of five was
invited to present fully developed proposals. DPW had Treasury Board approval to make
payments of up to $30,000 to developers whose bids proved unsuccessful. In the end, DPW
Contd....

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 203