Many organizations have more than one audit on the calendar each year. A Financial Statement Audit, a System and Organization Controls (SOC) Examination, and other regulatory assessments can occur during the same quarter, drawing from the same control owners and the same evidence. This article explores an important question to consider: Is there a more coordinated way to approach this work that eases the load on your team while supporting strong third-party assurance? This article explores the costs of running engagements separately, how an aligned approach can help mitigate audit fatigue, and the typical gaps to watch for as you build a more streamlined assurance program.
Why Separate Engagements May Cost More
Organizations that run SOC Reports and the Financial Statement Audit as independent engagements often absorb costs that don’t appear on an invoice. Control owners provide the same evidence to different teams. Fieldwork windows can overlap, especially in the third and fourth quarters when SOC testing and year-end audit procedures often coincide. Separate methodologies create rework, and different testing timelines can even produce different conclusions on the same control. The result is more disruption to management and compliance overhead that adds cost without enhancing the value of assurance.
“We saw a team spend around 150 hours producing evidence because there were multiple requests for the same evidence from different service providers.” – Ryan Boggs, “SOC & Audit: Using Third-Party Assurance Together”
How Can Coordinated SOC Reports & Audits Help Reduce Compliance Costs?
When these engagements are coordinated under a single provider, the operating model can shift. Evidence is provided once and leveraged across engagements rather than reproduced for each. IT General Controls (ITGCs), application controls, Information Produced by the Entity (IPE), and change management are tested on both the SOC and Financial Audit sides, so testing once can help produce meaningful savings for control owners.
In addition, a shared methodology helps align financial reporting controls with SOC requirements, reducing gaps and avoidable remediation. Coordinated timelines organized around one shared audit calendar also can help limit disruption to management and ease the strain on internal resources. In addition, consistent control narratives across reports can help reduce follow-up inquiries from auditors, regulators, and stakeholders, since one firm reports results with a consistent standard.
Together, these efficiencies support a repeatable, scalable assurance framework that can thrive as requirements evolve. A helpful starting point is to map a few high-overlap areas, such as administrative access listings and change tickets, and measure the benefit before expanding.
Three Overlooked Areas in Third-Party Assurance Programs
Even a well-coordinated program can have gaps in how third-party assurance is evaluated. As organizations lean more heavily on third-party technology, from hosting to transaction processing, the quality of vendor assurance directly affects the quality of the audit. Here are three areas in particular that deserve attention:
- Report-Period Coverage: When a vendor’s SOC Report ends before your fiscal year-end, a bridge letter closes the “silent period” with written confirmation that no material changes occurred, keeping the assurance chain intact through year-end.
- Fourth-Party Visibility: If a vendor’s SOC Report carves out a subservice organization, you need that fourth party’s own report to complete the assurance chain. Without it, part of the control environment goes unexamined.
- Shared Responsibility: SOC Reports list specific controls your organization must operate for the vendor’s controls to be effective. Many organizations acknowledge these Complementary User Entity Controls (CEUCs) but never formally track whether they are performed.
Building a More Resilient Assurance Posture
A structured approach to closing these gaps, combined with a coordinated engagement model, can help reduce compliance costs, strengthen governance, and build a more resilient assurance posture. The core message is straightforward. Fragmented assurance is a structural problem that can create duplicate requests, redundant testing, and inconsistent timelines. Bringing the work together, with careful attention to maintaining independence, can help address the burden that separate audits place on your organization. The benefits can be measurable, the quality standard can remain consistent, and the path forward is clear for organizations ready to explore.
“We want to coordinate evidence, timelines, and walkthroughs, but it’s important to note that we [our assurance teams] still form our own conclusions. That’s an independence piece we’re very conscious of. When we’re performing assurance activities, we’re making our own conclusions based on the evidence.” – Karen Cardillo, “SOC & Audit: Using Third-Party Assurance Together”
How Forvis Mazars Can Help
Staying ahead in a fast-changing reporting environment is essential. At Forvis Mazars, our experienced SOC & HITRUST® professionals are ready to help you prepare for what’s next. Working alongside you, we can help map high-overlap controls, address common assurance gaps, and support consistent reporting to your audit committee. If you would like to learn more, please reach out to a professional at Forvis Mazars.
Watch our on-demand webinar, “SOC & Audit: Using Third-Party Assurance Together,” for more information on these topics.