SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 2
Download to read offline
SOC 1 Type 2 audit completed in condensed
timeframe upholds confidence for all audit needs.
The client
MERS of Michigan (Municipal Employees’ Retirement System) is an agent multiple-employer
defined benefit pension plan that serves Michigan municipalities and their employees. MERS
administers nearly 2,400 plans represented by more than 700 Michigan municipal members
with a combined value of more than $9 billion. MERS serves more than 100,000 participants.
{A case study.}
The challenge
The solution
During the 2014 calendar year, MERS had to prepare for its employers pending required
implementation of GASB 68. While GASB 68 didn’t directly impact MERS, MERS needed
to work closely with the participating municipalities to provide all of the information
required to comply with this new accounting standard. MERS understood that only
providing its fiscal 2014 audited financial statements to its members wouldn’t provide the
municipalities with sufficient audit evidence. It was critical, therefore, that MERS provide
timely additional audit information in order for the participating municipalities to be able
to rely on the accuracy of the net pension liability they were recording under GASB 68.
Absent this additional audit evidence, the participating employers would be facing
modified audit opinions.
MERS was faced with two choices:
1. Complete and issue a SOC 1 Type 2 audit of its internal controls by February 2015
(the most cost-effective method) along with a separate opinion on the Schedule of
Changes in Net Position by Employer as a whole, or
2. Issue a direct opinion on each employer’s Schedule of Changes in Net Position; this
would be a much more costly alternative.
After several discussions with Plante Moran, MERS decided to proactively complete a
SOC 1 Type 2 audit of the controls surrounding its defined benefit pension plan system
in order for the participating municipalities and their auditors to be able to rely on the
GASB 68 information provided by MERS and its actuaries. The audit report would identify
the controls in place and report on the design and effectiveness of controls to provide
reasonable assurance that contributions, net investment income, and benefit payments as
reported by the organization are accurate.
In order to complete the SOC 1 audit by December 31, 2014, Plante Moran’s engagement
team performed a readiness assessment within a condensed time frame. This process
resulted in the documentation of descriptions of the MERS defined benefit pension
plan system. Once the system that was to be audited was documented, Plante Moran
identified the controls within that system and identified any gaps for MERS to remediate.
{A case study.}
Plante Moran and MERS worked jointly toward ensuring that all MERS participating municipalities
would receive the additional audit evidence the SOC 1 needed under GASB 68 on a timely
basis and in the most cost-effective manner. By being on the cutting edge of this issue, our joint
initiatives saved MERS a significant amount of time and staff resources at about one-quarter of
the cost of the alternative solution. MERS estimates that, overall, is was able to save its customers
over $2 million in additional implementation costs for GASB 68. Plante Moran was able to
support MERS with an additional audit to help manage a reporting change, GASB 68. Plante
Moran’s ability to perform specialty audits, such as the SOC 1, allows clients like MERS to enjoy
the confidence and continuity of the same vendor for all their audit needs.
The benefit
Sarah Pavelek
sarah.pavelek@plantemoran.com
877.622.2257 x33891
Alexis Kennedy
alexis.kennedy@plantemoran.com
877.622.2257 x33618
Contact
Then, within a very short turnaround, Plante Moran performed a SOC 1 Type II examination covering
the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, that was issued in February 2015. Plante
Moran was able to draw upon its deep bench of government experts to assemble a team of
specialists that was able to successfully complete the examination within the aggressive deadline.

More Related Content

Similar to SOC 1_MERS Case Study

Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016) Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
 
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA
 
Project management office sfs
Project management office   sfsProject management office   sfs
Project management office sfs
Gaurav Kalekar
 
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
Shree Ram Dhakal
 
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
Amara Omar Kuyateh
 
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
SecondFloor
 
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in ReviewParticipant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
Multnomah Group, Inc.
 
MiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
MiFID 2 - Report PDF VersionMiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
MiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
Alexander Goodwin
 

Similar to SOC 1_MERS Case Study (20)

Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016) Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-Related Risks (March 2016)
 
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
FSB TSCB Phase 1 Report March 2016
 
The Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated Framework
The Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated FrameworkThe Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated Framework
The Insurance Reporting Challenge: Building an Integrated Framework
 
Consolidation Proposal and Other Developments from Q2 2017
Consolidation Proposal and Other Developments from Q2 2017Consolidation Proposal and Other Developments from Q2 2017
Consolidation Proposal and Other Developments from Q2 2017
 
Project management office sfs
Project management office   sfsProject management office   sfs
Project management office sfs
 
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
Procurement Management Information System (PMIS) for Improving Public Procure...
 
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...
Solution manual for Auditing & Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 12th ...
 
PQRS 101: Meeting Requirements, Avoiding Penalties
PQRS 101: Meeting Requirements, Avoiding PenaltiesPQRS 101: Meeting Requirements, Avoiding Penalties
PQRS 101: Meeting Requirements, Avoiding Penalties
 
Subhashitam
SubhashitamSubhashitam
Subhashitam
 
20190523 sftr exec overview
20190523 sftr exec overview20190523 sftr exec overview
20190523 sftr exec overview
 
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
September article SSAE 16 the SAS 70 Final Version (mp)
 
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
Leading UK Life Provider Automates Internal Model Processes for Solvency II C...
 
Planning for a new Service Organization Control (SOC) report
Planning for a new Service Organization Control (SOC) reportPlanning for a new Service Organization Control (SOC) report
Planning for a new Service Organization Control (SOC) report
 
Audits of Different types of Entity
Audits of Different types of EntityAudits of Different types of Entity
Audits of Different types of Entity
 
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in ReviewParticipant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
Participant Fee Disclosure Era 1st Year in Review
 
IFRS Transition
IFRS TransitionIFRS Transition
IFRS Transition
 
MiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
MiFID 2 - Report PDF VersionMiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
MiFID 2 - Report PDF Version
 
Broadridge Cost Basis Phase III Implementation
Broadridge Cost Basis Phase III ImplementationBroadridge Cost Basis Phase III Implementation
Broadridge Cost Basis Phase III Implementation
 
A summary of solvency ii directives
A summary of solvency ii directivesA summary of solvency ii directives
A summary of solvency ii directives
 
A summary of Solvency II Directives
A summary of Solvency II DirectivesA summary of Solvency II Directives
A summary of Solvency II Directives
 

SOC 1_MERS Case Study

  • 1. SOC 1 Type 2 audit completed in condensed timeframe upholds confidence for all audit needs. The client MERS of Michigan (Municipal Employees’ Retirement System) is an agent multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan that serves Michigan municipalities and their employees. MERS administers nearly 2,400 plans represented by more than 700 Michigan municipal members with a combined value of more than $9 billion. MERS serves more than 100,000 participants. {A case study.} The challenge The solution During the 2014 calendar year, MERS had to prepare for its employers pending required implementation of GASB 68. While GASB 68 didn’t directly impact MERS, MERS needed to work closely with the participating municipalities to provide all of the information required to comply with this new accounting standard. MERS understood that only providing its fiscal 2014 audited financial statements to its members wouldn’t provide the municipalities with sufficient audit evidence. It was critical, therefore, that MERS provide timely additional audit information in order for the participating municipalities to be able to rely on the accuracy of the net pension liability they were recording under GASB 68. Absent this additional audit evidence, the participating employers would be facing modified audit opinions. MERS was faced with two choices: 1. Complete and issue a SOC 1 Type 2 audit of its internal controls by February 2015 (the most cost-effective method) along with a separate opinion on the Schedule of Changes in Net Position by Employer as a whole, or 2. Issue a direct opinion on each employer’s Schedule of Changes in Net Position; this would be a much more costly alternative. After several discussions with Plante Moran, MERS decided to proactively complete a SOC 1 Type 2 audit of the controls surrounding its defined benefit pension plan system in order for the participating municipalities and their auditors to be able to rely on the GASB 68 information provided by MERS and its actuaries. The audit report would identify the controls in place and report on the design and effectiveness of controls to provide reasonable assurance that contributions, net investment income, and benefit payments as reported by the organization are accurate. In order to complete the SOC 1 audit by December 31, 2014, Plante Moran’s engagement team performed a readiness assessment within a condensed time frame. This process resulted in the documentation of descriptions of the MERS defined benefit pension plan system. Once the system that was to be audited was documented, Plante Moran identified the controls within that system and identified any gaps for MERS to remediate.
  • 2. {A case study.} Plante Moran and MERS worked jointly toward ensuring that all MERS participating municipalities would receive the additional audit evidence the SOC 1 needed under GASB 68 on a timely basis and in the most cost-effective manner. By being on the cutting edge of this issue, our joint initiatives saved MERS a significant amount of time and staff resources at about one-quarter of the cost of the alternative solution. MERS estimates that, overall, is was able to save its customers over $2 million in additional implementation costs for GASB 68. Plante Moran was able to support MERS with an additional audit to help manage a reporting change, GASB 68. Plante Moran’s ability to perform specialty audits, such as the SOC 1, allows clients like MERS to enjoy the confidence and continuity of the same vendor for all their audit needs. The benefit Sarah Pavelek sarah.pavelek@plantemoran.com 877.622.2257 x33891 Alexis Kennedy alexis.kennedy@plantemoran.com 877.622.2257 x33618 Contact Then, within a very short turnaround, Plante Moran performed a SOC 1 Type II examination covering the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, that was issued in February 2015. Plante Moran was able to draw upon its deep bench of government experts to assemble a team of specialists that was able to successfully complete the examination within the aggressive deadline.