A contract-and-cash-flow review asks whether the financial assumptions used by a business align with the agreements and facts its advisers are assessing. The procurement challenge is coordinating the two disciplines without asking either to certify matters outside its remit. This guide explains how to shortlist a suitable team, not how to interpret a contract or make an investment decision.
A contract-and-cash-flow review asks whether the financial assumptions used by a business align with the agreements and facts its advisers are assessing. The procurement challenge is coordinating the two disciplines without asking either to certify matters outside its remit. This guide explains how to shortlist a suitable team, not how to interpret a contract or make an investment decision.
Identify the contracts, entities, cash-flow period and decision the review will support. State which records are available and which assumptions management currently uses. Ask each adviser to explain the work it proposes and the limitations created by missing information.
A broad request to review the numbers and documents is not enough. The team should know which commercial questions need reconciliation and which issues require separate specialist advice.
Ask how legal findings will be communicated to the financial reviewer and how modelling assumptions will be checked with counsel. Require an assumption register that identifies the source, owner and status of material inputs.
For example, a model may assume receipts on a schedule that differs from the agreement under review. The team should identify the inconsistency and obtain the relevant professional assessment before presenting a combined conclusion. Procurement should not attempt to resolve the underlying interpretation itself.
Request a proposed report structure that separates facts, assumptions, professional opinions and business decisions. The final output should show which questions remain unresolved and the effect of alternative assumptions where the financial adviser considers that appropriate.
Ask how the team will avoid duplicating data requests or issuing conflicting versions. A coordinated evidence list can reduce work for the business without eliminating the independent judgement of each adviser.
Assess the named team's experience with comparable reviews, relevant professional status and matter-specific conflict process. Confirm who issues each deliverable and the terms governing reliance, with appropriate professional review.
Compare fees against the same evidence and review scope rather than reward an offer that appears cheaper because it excludes the main reconciliation work. The suitable team is one that can explain where the numbers and agreements connect, where they do not yet connect and which next questions require the decision-maker's attention, without promising certainty that the underlying evidence cannot support.
Browse all Finance & Legal guides.
Find businesses listed under Finance & Legal on Vendoreye. Check each candidate’s actual offering, availability and relevant evidence. A directory listing is a starting point for evaluation, not an endorsement.