IIA Exam IIA-CRMA Topic 8 Question 74 Discussion

Actual exam question for IIA's IIA-CRMA exam

Question #: 74
Topic #: 8

When auditing the award of a major contract, which of the following should an internal auditor suspect as a red flag for a bidding fraud scheme?

1. Subsequent change orders increase requirements for low-bid items.

2. Material contract requirements are different on the actual contract than on the request for bids.

3. A high percentage of employees are charged to indirect accounts.

4. Losing bidders are hired as subcontractors.

A1 only

B2 only

C1 and 3.

D2 and 4.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Rozella at Apr 13, 2024, 10:20 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium IIA-CRMA Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Josphine

2 months ago

Hey, I bet the auditor's got a sixth sense for this kind of thing. They're probably trained to sniff out the slightest whiff of shady business. Gotta keep your game face on, folks!

upvoted 0 times

Romana

27 days ago

User 3: I agree, it's important to pay attention to those details.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tracey

28 days ago

User 2: Yeah, that does seem like a red flag for bidding fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosita

30 days ago

User 1: I think the auditor would definitely be suspicious if subsequent change orders increase requirements for low-bid items.

upvoted 0 times

...

Silva

2 months ago

Wow, these guys are really playing a game of 'spot the fraud' here, aren't they? Gotta keep your wits about you in the world of government contracts, that's for sure!

upvoted 0 times

Elinore

1 months ago

Absolutely, it's important to pay attention to any red flags that may indicate bidding fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Catrice

1 months ago

Definitely, you have to be vigilant for any signs of potential fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Matt

1 months ago

Yeah, it's like a constant game of cat and mouse with these contracts.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tresa

2 months ago

Ooh, the fourth option is a good one. Hiring the losing bidders as subcontractors? That's definitely suspicious. Trying to divide the spoils, are we?

upvoted 0 times

Tamie

21 days ago

It's definitely a sneaky move to watch out for during the audit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jerry

26 days ago

Definitely a red flag for potential bidding fraud.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pansy

1 months ago

I agree. It's like hushing them up by giving them a piece of the pie.

upvoted 0 times

...

Billy

2 months ago

That does seem fishy. It could be a way to keep them quiet about any irregularities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Izetta

2 months ago

Whoa, a high percentage of indirect costs? That's a weird one. Maybe they're trying to hide something in the accounting? Sneaky, sneaky.

upvoted 0 times

Ressie

2 months ago

Yeah, it could be a way to hide extra expenses or funnel money in a fraudulent way.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nan

2 months ago

That does sound suspicious. Maybe they're trying to inflate costs to cover up something.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dewitt

3 months ago

Hmm, the second option is also a good one. If the contract requirements don't match the bid documents, that's a major red flag. Someone's trying to pull a fast one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mammie

3 months ago

Definitely. It's important to watch out for any suspicious activities during contract awards.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brandon

3 months ago

I agree with you, Brandon. That seems like a clear conflict of interest.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mammie

3 months ago

I think the red flag for bidding fraud could be losing bidders being hired as subcontractors.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

3 months ago

Ah, I see what they're getting at. The first option seems like a pretty obvious red flag for a bidding fraud scheme. Sneaky contractors trying to inflate their profits, eh?

upvoted 0 times