Audit & Assurance · Specialised Audit & Certification
Special Purpose Audit (UAE) - AUP
Sometimes a bank, a franchisor, a joint-venture partner, or a regulator does not want an opinion — they want specific, factual answers to specific questions, delivered fast and without the interpretive layer of an audit or review.
Chartered Accountants · Dubai · Since 1986
A Special Purpose Audit — Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) engagement is a factual-findings engagement performed under International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 (Revised), 'Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements'. Unlike an audit or a review, an AUP engagement provides no assurance opinion at all. Instead, the practitioner agrees a specific, narrow set of procedures with the engaging party (and, where relevant, other named parties who will rely on the report), performs exactly those procedures, and reports the factual findings — what was found, tested, or confirmed — without expressing any conclusion on whether the underlying subject matter is 'fairly stated', 'true and fair', or otherwise acceptable. The reader of the report is left to draw their own conclusions from the stated facts.
This distinction matters enormously in practice. An audit (ISA 800/805) and a review (ISRE 2400) both involve the practitioner exercising professional judgement to reach and express a conclusion — reasonable assurance for an audit, limited assurance for a review. An AUP engagement involves no judgement of that kind: the practitioner is not asked whether a number is 'right', only whether a specifically defined procedure — recalculating a royalty base, confirming a bank balance, checking that a covenant ratio was calculated as specified, tracing invoices to a ledger — produces a particular factual result. This makes AUP engagements considerably faster to scope and execute than an audit, and correspondingly cheaper, provided the procedures are precisely defined upfront.
Demand for AUP engagements in the UAE arises in a recurring set of commercial situations. Franchisors and licensors commission AUP engagements to verify a franchisee's or licensee's reported turnover before calculating royalty payments, since a full audit of the franchisee's business is usually neither necessary nor proportionate to the question. Banks and lenders sometimes request AUP procedures — rather than a full audit — to confirm a specific covenant calculation, a debt-service coverage ratio, or a drawing-power figure at a point in time. Joint-venture partners use AUP engagements to verify a specific cost allocation, profit-share calculation, or expense reimbursement claim between JV partners without commissioning a full audit of either party. Buyers in smaller transactions sometimes commission targeted AUP procedures on specific balance sheet items — cash, related-party balances, or a revenue recognition policy — as a faster, cheaper alternative to full financial due diligence where the deal size does not justify the larger exercise. Regulators and government bodies occasionally specify a defined set of procedures (for example, confirming that grant funds were transferred to specified beneficiaries) rather than requesting a full audit opinion.
Because an AUP report expresses no assurance conclusion, the report itself carries a mandatory restriction on use — it is addressed only to the parties who agreed the procedures (and any other named parties who have also agreed them), and it explicitly states that the procedures performed were not an audit or a review, and that no assurance is expressed. This is not a weaker or lesser deliverable; it is a precisely different one, purpose-built for situations where the engaging party already knows what specific fact they need confirmed and does not need — or does not want to pay for — a broader assurance opinion.
PNPC Global's UAE practice treats the scoping conversation for an AUP engagement as the single most important step, because the entire value of the engagement depends on the procedures being defined with enough precision that there is no room for interpretation during fieldwork or dispute afterward about what was actually agreed. A procedure such as 'recalculate the royalty base per clause 4.2 of the franchise agreement, applying the agreed exclusions listed in Schedule 3' is workable; a procedure such as 'review the franchisee's turnover for reasonableness' is not — it invites exactly the kind of judgement an AUP engagement is designed to avoid, and risks the report inadvertently reading like a review or audit opinion it was never scoped to be.
The most common failure we see in AUP reports issued by other firms is procedure drift — the practitioner starts performing the agreed mechanical procedure, encounters an ambiguity or exception, and quietly exercises judgement to resolve it rather than reporting the exception as a finding and referring it back to the engaging party. This blurs the line between AUP and review, exposes both the practitioner and the client to the risk that the report is later challenged as having overstepped its mandate, and can make a franchisor, bank, or JV partner suspicious of a figure that looks 'smoothed' rather than reported as found.
The deliverable is a factual findings report — one paragraph confirming the procedures performed and the results of each, in the same order as agreed, plus the mandatory statement that no assurance is expressed and that the report is restricted to the specified parties. PNPC issues every AUP report only after the procedures and their precise wording are confirmed in writing with the engaging party (and, ideally, informally with anyone else who will rely on the output), because the value of an AUP engagement collapses entirely if the recipient later argues the wrong thing was tested.
When an Agreed-Upon Procedures engagement is the right tool
A franchisor or licensor needs the franchisee's or licensee's reported turnover verified against specific supporting records before calculating a royalty, without commissioning a full audit of the franchisee's business
A bank or lender wants a specific covenant ratio, debt-service coverage calculation, or drawing-power figure independently recalculated and confirmed at a point in time, rather than a full audit opinion
Joint-venture partners need a defined cost allocation, profit-share calculation, or expense reimbursement claim verified against the JV agreement's formula, without a full audit of either partner
A buyer in a smaller transaction needs specific balance sheet items (cash, related-party balances, a revenue recognition test) checked quickly and cheaply, where a full financial due diligence exercise is not proportionate to deal size
A grant-giving body or regulator has specified a defined set of factual procedures (confirming disbursement to named beneficiaries, checking specific expenditure against budget lines) rather than requesting a full audit opinion
A shareholder or board wants a specific transaction, related-party balance, or expense category independently checked without triggering the cost and time of a broader audit
A landlord or licensor of a serviced office, retail space, or managed facility wants percentage-rent turnover figures independently confirmed against a lease clause formula
A distributor agreement includes a minimum purchase or sales threshold that needs independent confirmation before a rebate, discount tier, or exclusivity right is triggered
An insurer or claims adjuster wants specific, narrowly defined facts about a loss (stock quantities at a date, specific expenditure incurred) confirmed without a full forensic investigation
When another engagement fits better
Your mainland or free zone licence renewal requires the standard annual statutory audit of full financial statements — an AUP engagement provides no assurance opinion and cannot substitute for that requirement
The engaging party wants a conclusion or opinion on whether the numbers are fairly stated, materially correct, or reasonable — that requires an audit (ISA 800/805) or, for lighter assurance, a review (ISRE 2400), not an AUP engagement
The procedures cannot be defined with precision in advance — if the request is essentially 'look into this and tell us what you think', that calls for a review, an audit, or an investigative engagement, not AUP, because ISRS 4400 requires specific, agreed procedures rather than open-ended enquiry
You need a bank-facing net worth certificate, solvency certificate, or general assurance report intended to be relied upon by an unspecified or broad group of readers — AUP reports are restricted strictly to the parties who agreed the procedures
You suspect fraud and need a genuine investigative engagement with forensic methodology, evidence-preservation protocols, and potential litigation use — a forensic accounting engagement, not AUP, is the right tool, though AUP procedures can sometimes form a narrow, targeted first step
The counterparty or recipient will not sign off on the specific procedures in advance, or keeps changing what they want tested mid-engagement — AUP only works with a fixed, agreed scope; a moving target belongs in a broader review or investigative engagement instead
You want a valuation opinion on a business, share, or asset — that is a valuation engagement, a different discipline, even though it may reference AUP-verified figures as an input
You are hoping to use an AUP factual-findings report as though it were an audit opinion when presenting to a new bank, investor, or regulator who was not one of the original agreeing parties — the restriction on use in the report specifically prevents this kind of broader reliance
Agreed-Upon Procedures vs other UAE audit and assurance engagements
| Feature | Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) | Special Purpose Audit | Statutory Annual Audit | Review Engagement (ISRE 2400) | Forensic / Investigative Engagement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governing standard | ISRS 4400 (Revised) | ISA 800 / ISA 805 | Full ISA suite (IFRS financial statements) | ISRE 2400 (Revised) | No single ISA — engagement-specific scope, often supported by forensic methodology |
| Level of assurance | No assurance — factual findings only | Reasonable assurance (positive opinion) | Reasonable assurance (positive opinion) | Limited assurance (negative assurance conclusion) | Varies — often no formal assurance opinion, findings of fact |
| Scope of subject matter | Specific procedures agreed with the engaging party, applied to a defined item or figure | Defined element, account, or special-basis financial statement | Complete general purpose financial statements | Complete or partial financial statements, limited procedures | Specific allegation, transaction, or fact pattern under dispute |
| Typical UAE trigger | Royalty/turnover verification, covenant recalculation, JV cost-share check, targeted transaction check | Bank facility, visa, grant, transaction, court request | Annual licence renewal (mainland/free zone), shareholder requirement | Interim reporting, lender comfort where full audit not required | Suspected fraud, dispute, litigation, whistleblower matter |
| Report distribution | Restricted strictly to parties who agreed the procedures — no assurance conclusion expressed | Restricted to named recipient(s) per ISA 800/805 | General purpose — for all financial statement users | Restricted per engagement terms, often broader than special purpose | Restricted to instructing party, often privileged in litigation context |
| Practitioner's judgement exercised | Minimal — procedures are mechanical and precisely defined, no interpretation of results | Full professional judgement applied to reach an opinion | Full professional judgement applied to reach an opinion | Judgement applied, though procedures narrower than an audit | Substantial judgement and investigative methodology applied |
| Typical timeline | Days to 2 weeks depending on procedures agreed | 1–4 weeks depending on scope and evidence availability | 4–8 weeks including planning, fieldwork, and sign-off | 1–3 weeks | Highly variable — weeks to months |
| Who commissions it | Franchisor, lender, JV partner, buyer, grantor, landlord | Bank, visa authority, grantor, buyer, court, shareholder | Free zone / DED / regulator (mandated), shareholders | Lender, management, board (voluntary or contractual) | Board, shareholders, regulator, or court order |
This table is directional. The choice between AUP and a special purpose audit turns on one question: does the engaging party want an opinion, or just the facts? If they want to know whether a number is 'right', that is an audit or review. If they already know what they want checked and just need it confirmed mechanically, AUP is faster and cheaper. Confirm which is actually wanted before scoping — the wrong engagement type is the most common cause of a report that does not satisfy the recipient.
| Stage | What happens | Who acts | Typical output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Scoping call | PNPC establishes exactly who commissioned the AUP, what factual question they need answered, and which other parties (if any) will rely on the report | Client and PNPC engagement partner | Clear statement of the underlying business question driving the engagement |
| 2. Procedures drafting | PNPC drafts the specific, mechanical procedures to be performed — recalculation formulas, sampling basis, documents to trace, balances to confirm — with no ambiguity about what 'testing' means for each item | PNPC, reviewed line-by-line with the engaging party | Draft list of agreed-upon procedures, numbered and precisely worded |
| 3. Agreement of procedures with all relying parties | Where a franchisor, bank, or JV partner other than the direct client will rely on the report, PNPC confirms they agree the exact wording of each procedure before fieldwork starts — this is a specific ISRS 4400 requirement, not a courtesy step | Engaging party plus any other named relying party | Written sign-off on the final procedures list from every party who will rely on the report |
| 4. Engagement letter | The engagement letter records the agreed procedures verbatim, confirms no assurance will be expressed, and sets out the restriction on use naming every party entitled to receive the report | PNPC and client, countersigned | Signed engagement letter with procedures annexed |
| 5. Evidence request | PNPC requests only the specific records needed for the agreed procedures — the underlying ledger, the franchise agreement clause, the covenant formula, the JV cost-share schedule — deliberately narrower than a full audit evidence list | Client provides; PNPC confirms completeness against the procedures list | Document set matched item-for-item to each procedure |
| 6. Procedure execution | PNPC performs each agreed procedure exactly as worded — recalculating, tracing, confirming, comparing — without substituting judgement for a procedure that produces an ambiguous or unexpected result | PNPC fieldwork team | Procedure-by-procedure factual results, documented as performed |
| 7. Exception handling | Where a procedure surfaces an anomaly the procedures did not anticipate (a document that does not exist, a formula that cannot be applied as worded), PNPC reports this as a specific finding and refers back to the engaging party rather than resolving it unilaterally | PNPC flags; engaging party decides how to proceed | Documented exception log, distinct from the main findings |
| 8. Draft factual findings report | PNPC drafts the report strictly in the ISRS 4400 format — procedures performed and factual results only, the mandatory statement that no assurance is expressed, and the restriction on use naming every relying party | PNPC, second-partner reviewed before circulation | Draft AUP report for client review |
| 9. Partner review and sign-off | A second, independent partner reviews the draft specifically to confirm no assurance language has crept into the wording — a recurring risk in AUP drafting that PNPC checks for explicitly | PNPC second reviewing partner | Reviewed, sign-off-ready report |
| 10. Report issuance | The signed factual findings report is issued in the format and number of copies the engaging party and any other relying party specified, addressed to each named party per the restriction on use | PNPC | Final signed ISRS 4400 factual findings report |
A straightforward AUP engagement — a single royalty recalculation or a covenant ratio check — can often be scoped, executed, and issued within one to two weeks once the procedures are agreed in writing by every relying party. The step most often underestimated is step 3: getting every party who will rely on the report to formally agree the exact procedures before fieldwork starts, which is a requirement of ISRS 4400, not an optional courtesy.
The underlying agreement, clause, or formula that defines what needs to be checked — the franchise agreement's royalty clause, the facility letter's covenant formula, the JV agreement's cost-share mechanism, or the lease's percentage-rent clause
Trade licence and Memorandum/Articles of Association of the entity whose figures are being checked
Signed engagement letter annexing the exact agreed-upon procedures and the restriction on use naming every relying party
Written sign-off from every relying party (franchisor, bank, JV partner) confirming they agree the exact procedures, obtained before fieldwork begins
The franchise, licence, or distribution agreement setting out the royalty or fee calculation basis and any permitted exclusions
Point-of-sale system reports, sales ledger, and VAT return filings via EmaraTax for the relevant period, to trace and cross-check reported turnover
Bank statements showing revenue deposits for the period under review
Any prior royalty statements submitted to the franchisor or licensor, for consistency checking
The facility letter or loan agreement clause specifying the exact covenant formula (debt-service coverage ratio, leverage ratio, drawing-power calculation)
Trial balance and general ledger extracts supporting each component of the covenant formula
Prior covenant compliance certificates submitted to the bank, for trend consistency
Bank statements and facility drawdown schedules relevant to the calculation period
The joint-venture agreement's cost allocation, profit-share, or expense reimbursement formula
Expense ledgers, invoices, and supporting vouchers for costs claimed for allocation between JV partners
Intercompany or inter-partner recharge schedules and related correspondence
Bank statements evidencing actual cash movements between JV partners for the relevant transactions
The term sheet or agreement identifying exactly which balance sheet items or figures require independent confirmation
General ledger extracts and supporting schedules for the specific items in scope (cash, related-party balances, a defined revenue test)
Bank confirmation letters or third-party confirmations where the procedure specifically calls for external verification
Management's basis-of-preparation memo for any specific treatment applied to the items being checked
Trade licence copy (mainland DED licence or relevant free zone authority licence) current and valid at the review date
UAE VAT registration certificate (TRN) and recent EmaraTax filings, where revenue or turnover figures form part of the procedures
UAE Corporate Tax registration details and Tax Registration Number, where relevant to cross-checking the figures under review
Board or management resolution authorising the AUP engagement, where the request originates from an internal decision rather than an external counterparty
| Phase | Triggered By | PNPC CA Guidance | Risk If Ignored |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request received | Franchisor, bank, JV partner, buyer, or regulator asks for specific figures to be checked | Establish precisely what factual question is being asked and whether every future relying party is already identified — do not assume the direct client is the only reader of the eventual report | Scoping only for the direct client, then discovering a second relying party later, forces a restart of the procedures-agreement step |
| Procedures drafting and agreement | PNPC and all relying parties agree the exact wording of each procedure | Word each procedure as a mechanical, unambiguous instruction with no room for interpretation — vague procedures produce disputed findings | Ambiguous procedures lead to a report the engaging party argues does not actually answer their question |
| Evidence gathering | Fieldwork begins against the agreed procedures list | Request only what each specific procedure requires; do not expand into broader audit-style evidence gathering, which changes the nature of the engagement | Scope creep into audit-style testing blurs the AUP/audit line and can mislead readers about the level of assurance actually provided |
| Exception surfacing | A procedure produces an unexpected or ambiguous result | Report the exception as a specific finding and refer back to the engaging party rather than exercising judgement to resolve it — that judgement belongs to the reader, not the practitioner, under ISRS 4400 | Unilaterally resolving an exception turns a factual-findings report into something resembling a review opinion it was never scoped or priced to be |
| Reporting | Fieldwork complete | Draft the report strictly in ISRS 4400 format — procedures and factual results only, explicit 'no assurance is expressed' statement, and the restriction on use naming every relying party | Assurance-sounding language creeping into the report exposes the practitioner to a claim of implied assurance that was never intended |
| Issuance and reliance | Report delivered to every named relying party | Confirm each relying party received the report in the agreed format before considering the engagement closed | A relying party who did not receive the report directly may later dispute whether they were entitled to rely on it |
| Recurring need | The same type of check recurs — an annual royalty verification, a quarterly covenant check | Set up a standing engagement with the same agreed procedures reused (updated only where the underlying agreement or formula changes) so each cycle does not require re-negotiating procedures from scratch | Re-scoping procedures from zero each cycle wastes time and risks inconsistent wording between periods, inviting a challenge on comparability |
| Underlying agreement amended | The franchise agreement, facility letter, or JV agreement is renegotiated and the calculation formula changes | Update the agreed procedures to match the amended clause before the next AUP cycle, and have every relying party re-confirm the revised wording | Applying stale procedures to a formula that has since changed produces a factually correct but practically meaningless report |
What exactly is an Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) engagement?
It is an engagement where PNPC performs a specific, precisely defined set of procedures agreed in advance with the party (or parties) commissioning the work, and reports only the factual results — with no opinion, no conclusion, and no assurance expressed. It is governed by International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 (Revised). The reader of the report draws their own conclusions from the stated facts.
How is AUP different from a Special Purpose Audit?
A Special Purpose Audit (under ISA 800/805) still results in an opinion — reasonable assurance that a defined element or set of accounts is fairly stated against an agreed framework. An AUP engagement expresses no opinion at all; it simply reports factual findings against specifically agreed procedures. AUP is faster and cheaper because there is no professional judgement to exercise in reaching a conclusion — but it also gives the reader less than an audit opinion would.
Who typically commissions AUP engagements in the UAE?
Franchisors and licensors verifying franchisee turnover for royalty calculations, banks confirming a specific covenant ratio, joint-venture partners checking a cost-share or profit-share calculation, buyers in smaller transactions wanting a targeted check rather than full due diligence, and occasionally regulators or grant-giving bodies with a narrowly defined verification requirement.
What auditing standard governs an AUP engagement?
International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 (Revised), 'Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements', issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). It sets out the practitioner's responsibilities for agreeing procedures with the engaging party, performing them, and reporting factual results without expressing assurance.
Why would a bank ask for AUP instead of a full audit?
Where a bank only needs one specific fact confirmed — a covenant ratio, a drawing-power calculation, a specific balance — a full audit opinion on the entire set of financial statements is disproportionate in cost and time. An AUP engagement lets the bank get exactly the confirmation it needs, faster and at lower cost, while the annual statutory audit (if required separately) continues to cover the complete financial statements.
Does an AUP report carry any legal or contractual weight?
Yes, within its defined scope — because it reports independently verified factual results against agreed procedures, it can support a royalty payment calculation, a covenant compliance certificate, or a cost allocation between JV partners as documentary evidence of what was checked and found. It does not carry the weight of an audit opinion, and it should not be presented as though it does.
How long does an AUP engagement typically take?
A straightforward, single-procedure AUP engagement — for example, recalculating a royalty base against a clear franchise agreement formula — can often be completed within one to two weeks once procedures are agreed and evidence is provided. More complex engagements involving multiple procedures across several accounts or entities take longer.
Can PNPC design the specific procedures, or does the client need to specify them?
PNPC typically drafts the procedures based on the underlying agreement or formula (the franchise clause, the covenant wording, the JV cost-share mechanism), then circulates the draft for the engaging party — and any other relying party — to review and formally agree before fieldwork begins. Precision in the wording is the single most important factor in the engagement's usefulness.
What happens if a procedure produces an unexpected result during fieldwork?
PNPC reports it as a specific, factual exception rather than resolving it through professional judgement — for example, if a recalculation cannot be performed because a required document does not exist, that is reported as a finding in its own right, and the engaging party decides how to proceed, rather than the practitioner deciding on their behalf.
Who can rely on an AUP report?
Only the parties who formally agreed the procedures before fieldwork began, and who are explicitly named in the restriction on use. Under ISRS 4400 (Revised), a party who did not agree the procedures in advance is not entitled to rely on the results, even if they later see the report.
Can an AUP report be turned into a full audit later if more assurance is needed?
Not directly — an AUP engagement and an audit are separate engagement types requiring separate scoping and terms. However, the evidence gathered during an AUP engagement (ledgers reviewed, confirmations obtained) can often be reused efficiently if the client subsequently commissions a broader audit or review on the same subject matter.
Is AUP relevant to UAE Corporate Tax matters?
AUP procedures are not a Corporate Tax filing requirement, but they are sometimes used to verify specific figures — a royalty base, an intercompany cost allocation — that feed into a related party's or franchisee's taxable income calculation under Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 (9% on taxable income above AED 375,000, effective for financial years starting on or after 1 June 2023). Where the underlying figures matter for tax positions, we flag this to the client's tax advisor.
Does VAT registration status matter for a turnover-verification AUP?
Where the procedure involves verifying reported turnover, we routinely cross-check the figure against the entity's VAT return filings on EmaraTax as one of the agreed procedures, since a material mismatch between reported turnover and VAT-declared revenue is a fact worth surfacing to a franchisor or lender relying on the figure.
How is an AUP engagement priced compared to a full audit or special purpose audit?
AUP engagements are typically priced lower than a comparable special purpose audit or statutory audit, because the procedures are narrower and the practitioner is not exercising the broader professional judgement needed to reach an opinion. PNPC agrees a fixed fee once the specific procedures are finalised, since the fee depends directly on how many procedures are agreed and how much evidence-tracing each one requires.
Can PNPC run a recurring AUP engagement — for example, an annual franchise royalty check?
Yes — this is one of the most common recurring AUP structures we run. Once the procedures are agreed for the first cycle, subsequent cycles reuse the same wording (updated only if the underlying franchise agreement or formula changes), which meaningfully speeds up each subsequent engagement.
What is the biggest risk of a poorly scoped AUP engagement?
Vague or loosely worded procedures that leave room for interpretation — because an AUP report's entire value rests on the procedures being mechanical and unambiguous, a poorly worded procedure produces a report that different readers interpret differently, defeating the purpose of the engagement.
Does PNPC need to be independent of the entity being checked to perform an AUP engagement?
Independence requirements for AUP engagements under ISRS 4400 are less stringent than for an audit, since no assurance is being expressed — but PNPC still assesses and discloses any relevant relationship with the entity or the engaging parties, because a perceived conflict can undermine the credibility of even a purely factual report.
Can an AUP engagement be used to check compliance with a joint-venture profit-share formula?
Yes — this is a common and well-suited use of AUP: the JV agreement's profit-share or cost-allocation formula is translated into specific, mechanical procedures (recalculate the allocation per clause X, trace specified costs to invoices, confirm intercompany transfers against bank statements), and PNPC reports the factual results to both JV partners.
What if the franchisor or bank wants to change the procedures after fieldwork has started?
We pause and formally document the change as an amendment to the agreed procedures, obtaining renewed sign-off from every relying party before continuing — an AUP engagement's report is only as reliable as the discipline around what was actually agreed, so mid-engagement changes are never applied informally.
Is an AUP report acceptable to DIFC Courts or ADGM Courts if a dispute arises later?
An AUP factual findings report can be submitted as documentary evidence of what was checked and found, provided it was properly scoped and evidenced — but because it expresses no assurance conclusion, its evidentiary weight in a dispute differs from an audit opinion, and counsel should be consulted on whether additional expert evidence is needed for litigation purposes.
Does PNPC handle cross-border AUP engagements — for example, verifying figures for an India-based franchisor with UAE franchisees?
Yes — PNPC operates from Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Dubai, and regularly runs AUP engagements where the engaging party (a franchisor, licensor, or JV partner) is based in India and the entity being checked operates in the UAE, coordinating a single procedures list and report that both sides recognise.
What deliverable does PNPC provide at the end of an AUP engagement?
A factual findings report listing each agreed procedure and its specific result, the mandatory statement that no assurance is expressed, and the restriction on use naming every party entitled to rely on the report — plus the underlying working papers retained per professional record-retention standards.
PNPC Global vs. typical UAE AUP providers
| Factor | PNPC Global | Typical Small Local Firm | Big-4/Large International Firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedures drafting discipline | Every procedure worded as a mechanical, unambiguous instruction before fieldwork starts, reviewed line-by-line with the client | Often drafted loosely, closer to review-style language | Rigorous drafting, but high minimum fees regardless of engagement size |
| Multi-party sign-off | Formally obtains agreement from every relying party (not just the direct client) before fieldwork, per ISRS 4400 (Revised) | Sometimes skipped, assuming the direct client's sign-off is sufficient | Generally rigorous, but slower turnaround for smaller mandates |
| Exception handling | Flags and refers exceptions back to the engaging party rather than resolving them unilaterally | Risk of quietly exercising judgement, blurring the AUP/review line | Rigorous, but with high minimum fees regardless of engagement size |
| Franchise/royalty sector experience | Regular franchise royalty and licence-fee verification engagements across UAE sectors | Variable, often limited exposure to this engagement type | Available but priced for large, brand-name franchise networks |
| Cross-border India-UAE capability | Single firm handles both jurisdictions for franchisors, licensors, and JV partners spanning both markets | Rarely available | Available but typically at a much higher fee structure |
| Turnaround for recurring cycles | Faster on repeat engagements once procedures are established and reused | Similar effort each cycle without process memory | Can be slower due to internal review layers for lower-fee engagements |
| Cost structure for SME/franchise clients | Fixed fee scoped to the actual procedures agreed, transparent and proportionate | Can be inconsistent or bundled with unrelated services | Often cost-prohibitive for a narrowly scoped, single-procedure engagement |
| Continuity | Sets up a standing engagement calendar for recurring royalty, covenant, or JV checks | Treats each cycle as a fresh engagement, no process memory | Available, but continuity support typically a separate paid engagement |
PNPC Global positions AUP engagements as a precision tool, not a lighter-touch audit substitute — the value lies entirely in procedures being worded exactly right and every relying party being properly consulted before fieldwork starts.
What the PNPC package includes
- 01
Initial scoping call to confirm the exact factual question and identify every party who will rely on the final report
- 02
Drafting of precisely worded, mechanical agreed-upon procedures tied to the underlying agreement or formula (franchise clause, covenant wording, JV cost-share mechanism)
- 03
Formal sign-off process with every relying party on the exact procedures wording before fieldwork begins, per ISRS 4400 (Revised)
- 04
Targeted evidence request list matched item-for-item to each agreed procedure — no broader audit-style document requests
- 05
Cross-check of reported turnover or revenue figures against EmaraTax VAT filings where relevant to the procedures
- 06
Disciplined exception handling — flagged and referred back to the engaging party rather than resolved unilaterally
- 07
ISRS 4400-compliant factual findings report with the mandatory no-assurance statement and restriction on use
- 08
Second-partner review specifically checking for assurance-sounding language that should not appear in an AUP report
- 09
Report formatted and addressed to every named relying party's requirements
- 10
Support for recurring AUP cycles (annual royalty checks, quarterly covenant checks) with faster turnaround once procedures are established
- 11
Cross-border coordination for India-UAE franchisors, licensors, and joint-venture partners through a single advisory relationship
- 12
Working papers retained and indexed procedure-by-procedure for post-issuance queries
- 13
Amendment protocol for updating agreed procedures when the underlying franchise, facility, or JV agreement is renegotiated
Talk to PNPC Global before your next royalty statement, covenant certificate, or JV cost-share reconciliation is due — we scope the procedures precisely so the report answers exactly the question your franchisor, bank, or partner is asking.
Jurisdiction
Free zone, mainland & offshore
Ready to get started?
Tell us about your requirement — a UAE specialist responds within 24 hours.