Government-Project Reporting and Audit-Control Adviser

The mandate

The recurring question is whether public-project services reporting can withstand challenge when contract changes, acceptance certificates and recoverability evidence arrive on different timelines. An apparently overdue receivable may be a documentation failure, a disputed variation or a genuine credit concern. The adviser will help the finance operating committee test these distinctions without treating every uncertain balance as an opportunity for aggressive recognition.

Four days monthly are dedicated to reviewing judgement files, discussing control exceptions and producing a written challenge note. Operating committee attendance is included. Finance should supply papers five business days before review; ad-hoc requests receive acknowledgement within a day and a reasoned response within three working days. Urgent legal correspondence remains with counsel rather than being absorbed into advisory availability.

A six-month review calendar begins on 19 October 2026. Renewal belongs to the operating committee chair and must identify the public-project evidence or control questions that remain, rather than attaching the adviser indefinitely to unresolved contracts. Mumbai is the working base, mainly hybrid, with planned India project visits within the reserved days when primary evidence cannot be assessed remotely. The aim is stronger internal review practice, not an indefinite retainer attached to every future contract dispute.

Accounts and contract managers retain execution; this control adviser has no line authority and bears no executive responsibility for recognition, collections or audit preparation. Management owns reporting, collections, supplier payments and statutory submissions; appointed auditors issue their own opinions. Advice may challenge whether evidence supports a balance or control assertion, but cannot certify project completion, negotiate legal settlement or substitute for an audit engagement requiring statutory appointment.

Other unrelated retainers are permissible if cadence and confidentiality are protected. Advising a counterparty to a reviewed contract, preparing the same evidence under another paid assignment or holding an interest in a proposed recovery intermediary would conflict. The adviser must disclose these links before document access, accept recusal where necessary and avoid converting committee challenge into an undisclosed claim-management sales opportunity.

What you will own

• Test receivable judgement papers for contract entitlement, acceptance evidence and recoverability assumptions, identifying the evidence needed for recognition, correction or referral to counsel.
• Question accrual and variation controls where operational estimates lack documented reviewers or contractual bases, distinguishing delivery substantiation from authority to approve the accounting conclusion.
• Shape an audit-support checklist connecting primary project evidence to ledger amounts and management assertions, including retention and reviewer checks that preserve usability under challenge.
• Press owners on segregation between document preparation, accounting approval and contract-negotiation authority, identifying practical controls that protect reporting without obstructing legitimate commercial escalation.
• Challenge reporting narratives that confuse collection progress with recognition certainty, making remaining contractual or evidence dependencies visible to the committee's actual decision.
• Recommend committee escalation criteria for disputed balances, preserving legal, statutory and operational ownership through separate accounting correction, evidence recovery and potential dispute paths.

Candidate qualifications

• Evidence eighteen-plus years across services accounting, audit coordination or project-finance controls, with controller or head-of-accounts responsibility. Describe a government or long-cycle project balance whose treatment changed after you tested the evidence chain, and distinguish the decision you influenced from any legal or statutory opinion supplied by others.
• Bring recognised professional accounting training and practical knowledge of IFRS or Ind AS reporting judgements, provisions and receivable control. Show a case where an acceptance document did not establish the accounting assertion management assumed, and explain the additional evidence or revised conclusion you recommended.
• Demonstrate experience preparing finance teams for statutory or internal audit while maintaining ownership boundaries. Provide an example of a support file you improved, the reviewer challenge it resolved and the operating control that prevented recurrence. External audit pedigree is valuable only when accompanied by evidence of practical control judgement in a services environment.
• Prove independent advisory behaviour with a functional committee, including disagreement, recusal or limitation of scope. Disclose current contract-counterparty, audit, recovery and consulting relationships. The role requires predictable written review and a realistic four-day monthly commitment; it does not assume authority to sign audit opinions, settle claims or advise on public procurement law.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 9 October 2026. Mandate reference PCT-ADV-2026-IND-44.