Evidence
Client stories
What controllers and owners noticed during financial audit of vendor payment applications with Intel Center.
People who instruct us care about specific applications, not abstract scores. The notes below come from recent engagements in Busan and elsewhere in South Korea.
“The sample on our mechanical package caught three applications that reused the same delivery note. We held those lines and the contractor replaced the pack within a week.”
“I wished they had pushed harder on one electrical vendor earlier in the month—the exception landed two days before transfer—but the findings letter still gave us a clean trail for the board pack.”
“Retention on the lobby fit-out was overstated by a quiet formula error. Their reconciliation matched our contract annex page for page.”
“Pre-disbursement check on twelve high-value lines was enough for our treasury deadline. They did not pretend to have tested the whole run.”
Extended story: Centum tower fit-out, March cycle
A commercial fit-out client asked for a full vendor payment application audit covering sixteen active trades for one billing month. Document intake took two days; fieldwork ran eight working days with dual review on any line above an agreed threshold.
Material findings included a retention miscalculation on the joinery package, an unapproved rate change on temporary works, and two progress claims that exceeded certified percentages. The findings letter listed each exception with the application number and recommended hold amount. After a closing call, the client released the clean majority of the batch and renegotiated the three held lines before the following cycle.
What mattered to the controller was not a summary score—it was the ability to show the owner which applications were supported and which were not, with file references attached.
Extended story: Facilities maintenance close-out
At the end of a three-year maintenance framework, a facilities team needed a retention and final account check before releasing the last holdback. Intel Center rebuilt the retention ledger from monthly applications, compared release clauses to the framework schedule, and tested the final account against approved call-off variations.
The review supported most of the proposed release but flagged an early release that had not been reversed after a defects notice. The client adjusted the final transfer and closed the file with a clear audit trail for their internal audit group.
Planning a review for your next payment cycle?
Request a scoping call