Free Access IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 New Release

A properly supervised engagement ensures that the audit is conducted effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with IIA standards. The auditor in charge has the responsibility to oversee the audit process and ensure that the engagement objectives are achieved.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, work is performed according to appropriate standards, and the results are supported by sufficient, relevant, and reliable evidence.

Reasonable Assurance:

The auditor in charge must provide reasonable assurance that the audit engagement's objectives were met. This involves reviewing work performed, ensuring compliance with audit standards, and verifying that conclusions are supported by adequate evidence.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of the auditor in charge in providing oversight throughout the audit engagement. This includes ensuring that auditors follow procedures, apply professional judgment, and that all significant findings are appropriately addressed.

Option A (Daily record review): While keeping a record is good practice, it does not constitute comprehensive supervision.

Option B (Review by peers): Peer review is useful but does not replace the overarching responsibility of the auditor in charge.

Option C (Accompanying new auditors): This is part of training and guidance but does not alone ensure that engagement objectives are met.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Developing a tracking system to monitor the status of engagement recommendations ensures that the chief audit executive (CAE) can systematically track the progress and implementation of corrective actions. This approach provides continuous assurance that recommendations are being acted upon and allows the CAE to identify and address any delays or issues in the implementation process. It is a proactive strategy that enables regular follow-ups and reporting to senior management, thus maintaining accountability and transparency.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress

Internal control questionnaires (ICQs) are useful tools for internal auditors to guide interviews with auditees. They help ensure that all relevant aspects of internal controls are covered systematically during the interview process. While ICQs can help in evaluating the design and existence of controls, they primarily provide a structured format for gathering information from auditees about controls in place, rather than serving as direct audit evidence themselves. Therefore, they aid in the interview process by ensuring comprehensive coverage of control-related inquiries.

The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

While professional experience and judgment are important, conclusions in internal audit must be supported by objective, sufficient, and reliable evidence (Standard 2310). Merely believing that bid prices are too high is not enough. The auditor must provide substantiated and comparative evidence (C) — such as market benchmarks, independent price analyses, or comparisons with similar tenders — to justify the conclusion. A description of policies (A) or tender process summaries (B) provide context but do not prove overpricing. An impact analysis (D) highlights consequences but does not establish whether prices were indeed unreasonable. Therefore, the correct requirement is to gather and document comparative evidence that supports the auditor’s professional judgment.