RecktonCheck one vendor

The Vendor Exception Memo

The Vendor Exception Memo

A reproducible public-record research memo for one defined agency program. Fixed $2,500, outcome independent. Structured for your team to evaluate, reperform, and, where appropriate, incorporate under its own standards. It is built for forensic, performance, and municipal consultants and the oversight offices they serve.

Most engagements start smaller: a $500 Vendor Status Evidence Check on one named vendor. The memo is the expansion when a program level view is needed.

Built for evaluation under your firm's standards.

The memo is a research input, not an audit conclusion. Reckton assembles and tests the public-record trail. Your team determines relevance, performs whatever corroboration its standards require, and decides whether any part belongs in the engagement file. Each material fact carries a document citation and retrieval date. Entity matches use hard identifiers. Alternative explanations, limitations, and unresolved unknowns remain visible. Your firm retains responsibility for its engagement, independence, supervision, evidence evaluation, and conclusions.

What you get

Eight sections, in order, so a partner can see the workpaper structure at a glance.

  1. Issue and criteriaThe exception stated plainly: what the records appear to contradict and why it warrants review.
  2. EntitiesEach organization resolved by hard identifier, not by a name match, so every record attaches to the right entity.
  3. The contradiction, precisely citedThe specific conflict across the primary records, each material fact carrying its document citation and retrieval date.
  4. Spend trailThe vendor payments in scope, as recorded in the public ledger, tied to the dated timeline.
  5. Amounts in scopeA defensible amount or range where the records support one, otherwise the amount is stated as unknown. No multipliers. Counsel judges any legal theory; the memo supplies the arithmetic.
  6. What we do not knowStated plainly. Each unknown is paired with the record that would resolve it.
  7. Next records to pull, rankedThe records that would most advance the matter, ordered so the next step is obvious.
  8. A short method noteHow the record set was assembled and reconciled, so an independent reviewer can follow the work.

Questions go to Kingsong Chen and Peter Wang, founders. [email protected]