Akenhead J.A. found that the term “auditing” in the contract was comparable to “review” or “review.” However, in TGM, the records within the scope of the audit clause went much further. They contained a recording of the hours worked by a team of designers and, perhaps more surprisingly, documents that were made months later, including internal reports or audits by Thales to understand why the project went beyond time and budget. They should include only a right to an audit clause in contracts for AAS and other counterparties considered to be high risk. FALSE! FFIEC Outsourcing Booklet recommends asserting the right to review clauses The scope of documents covered by Term 28 is subject to certain restrictions, including: Contractors must carefully consider audit clauses when negotiating the contract. In the ever-changing specialization business and the desire for continuous growth, many companies rely on third-party specialists to support different sources of revenue. The use of third parties can be extremely advantageous in terms of time and cost savings, but it carries additional risks. Having a right-to-review clause and responding to it each year will help reduce these additional risks. If you include a right to the review clause, you are required to actually conduct a review. FALSE! A right to the review clause is precisely that; You reserve your right to the exam if you find it necessary. If properly worded, it does not constitute an obligation on your part to actually conduct a review. A right to an audit clause is a right of failure to reserve this option if necessary. A review is a good way to achieve such satisfactory security.
(Others are listed below.) Here are some other sources of information regarding the need to include an audit clause in the matching contracts: the complainants (TGM) and the defendants (Thales) had reached an agreement for Thales to provide a new tram system to TGM.