BDO Sanctioned Over NMCN Audit Failures as Regulator Targets Lapses in Professional Skepticism

Key Takeaways

• Long-Term Contract Risks at the Center: The FRC said major deficiencies emerged in audit work tied to NMCN’s long-term infrastructure contracts, particularly around revenue recognition and recoverability assessments.
• Professional Skepticism Under Scrutiny: Regulators found BDO and audit partner Geraint Jones failed to sufficiently challenge management assumptions and critically assess evidence in key areas including going concern.
• Pandemic-Era Audit Pressures Acknowledged: The audit took place during the first COVID-19 lockdown and after an unexpected engagement partner change, though the FRC said those conditions did not excuse the breaches.
• No Allegation of Dishonesty or Misstatement: The regulator stated the breaches were not intentional, reckless, or dishonest, and it did not allege that NMCN’s financial statements were actually misstated.

Deep Dive

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) announced sanctions against BDO and Jones over the 2019 statutory audit of NMCN. The regulator described the breaches as “significant and serious,” pointing to numerous and pervasive failures across the audit work, particularly in the testing of long-term contracts and the assessment of going concern risks.

The sanctions were substantial, though not catastrophic. BDO received a £2 million financial penalty that was reduced by 5% for what the regulator called exceptional cooperation and then discounted by another 30% for admissions and early settlement, leaving a final payable penalty of £1.33 million. Jones received a £75,000 penalty that was reduced on the same basis to £49,875. Both were severely reprimanded. The FRC also issued declarations stating that the 2019 audit report did not satisfy the relevant requirements. BDO agreed to cover the investigation costs as well.

The FRC said BDO and Jones had correctly identified the major risks in the audit from the beginning. They knew revenue and profit recognition on long-term contracts represented a significant risk of material misstatement. They knew recoverability questions surrounding contract assets, trade receivables, and retentions demanded scrutiny. The problem was not blindness. The problem was what happened after the risks were identified.

According to the regulator, the audit work performed in response was deficient. The notice repeatedly returns to failures to obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence,” a phrase that sounds dry until you remember what it really means. It means auditors signed off without adequately proving to themselves that the numbers in front of them deserved confidence.

That distinction matters more in construction than almost anywhere else. A long-term infrastructure contract can appear profitable for years because the assumptions underneath it have not yet collided with reality. Future costs drift upward slowly. Delays accumulate. Recovery assumptions remain untouched because revisiting them is painful and destabilizing and often politically inconvenient inside a business. Auditing those contracts requires a willingness to challenge management repeatedly, sometimes aggressively, especially when management itself may be operating under extraordinary pressure.

The FRC concluded that did not happen here. There were also failures tied to the audit of going concern. The regulator said BDO and Jones failed to adequately plan and perform the audit with professional skepticism and did not obtain sufficient evidence to conclude whether NMCN’s ability to continue as a going concern was subject to material uncertainty.

That part lands differently now than it might have in 2020. NMCN entered administration in October 2021. The FRC is careful not to suggest the company’s financial statements were actually misstated, and the notice explicitly states the breaches were not alleged to be intentional, dishonest, deliberate, or reckless.

Still, reading the enforcement action with the benefit of hindsight creates an uncomfortable gravity around the going concern findings. Auditors are not supposed to predict collapse. They are supposed to interrogate assumptions hard enough that investors can trust the process even when events later turn ugly.

Jamie Symington, Deputy Executive Counsel at the FRC, said the failures went to the core of auditing companies involved in major infrastructure projects, where particular care is needed around the recognition of revenue and profits from long-term contracts. He said the auditors failed to critically assess evidence, challenge management assertions, and exercise professional skepticism in key areas including going concern.

The regulator also went out of its way to credit both respondents for what it described as an exceptional level of cooperation during the investigation. That matters because the FRC does not use that language casually. Cooperation discounts are common. Exceptional cooperation findings are rarer and increasingly important in enforcement outcomes because regulators are trying to incentivize firms to resolve cases earlier and more transparently.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.