Audit capacity is demonstrated in the delivery plan

A demanding group-audit deadline is a useful way of testing whether an audit proposal has been planned for the organisation in front of the firm.

I would not start by comparing staff numbers. Instead, I would ask the proposed engagement partner to show how the team will manage the specific pressure points: UK statutory reporting, instructions from an overseas parent, significant component information, draft consolidated accounts and the board's approval timetable.

There is a difference between capacity and availability. A firm may employ experienced people without having the right people free in the weeks that matter. Equally, a smaller firm with a well-resourced plan may be entirely suitable for the engagement. The answer depends on scope, expertise, specialist needs and independence, as well as actual time available.

The most revealing conversation is about what could go wrong. Who speaks to the parent auditor if instructions change? What happens if a key schedule is not ready? When does the partner review an unresolved accounting judgement? If the answer is simply that the team will work harder, I would want a better plan.

The finance team also has obligations. A credible timetable identifies when the final trial balance, accounts, consolidations and evidence must be available. Neither side benefits from pretending these are purely audit-firm deadlines.

Before appointing, I would ask for a one-page responsibility and milestone plan, including the names of those who will resolve issues. It makes both the proposed service and the client's own commitments easier to assess. No plan can guarantee a signing date, but it can expose unrealistic assumptions while there is still time to act.

Further reading

• Audit and assurance
• Choosing an audit firm