An agreed-upon procedures engagement is an attestation service in which a CPA performs specific procedures that you and other interested parties have agreed to, then reports the factual results of that work. The practitioner does not provide an opinion or any form of assurance. Instead, the report lists each procedure performed and the corresponding findings, leaving you and the other users to draw your own conclusions. Agreed-upon procedures engagements are governed by Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 19, and they are a practical tool when a full audit would be more than a situation requires.
This guide explains what an agreed-upon procedures engagement is, when it makes sense to request one, what the report looks like, and how its findings differ fundamentally from an audit opinion. If you are weighing whether to commission an audit, a review, or something narrower, understanding this service will help you match the engagement to the actual question you need answered.
What an Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagement Is
In an agreed-upon procedures (AUP) engagement, the subject matter is defined narrowly and the scope is defined by the procedures themselves. You tell the CPA exactly what to examine and how, or you work with the CPA to design those steps, and the CPA carries them out and documents the results. The deliverable is a report of findings written in plain, factual terms, such as the quantity of items tested, the amounts confirmed, and any exceptions noted.
The defining feature is that the practitioner expresses no opinion and no conclusion. If a procedure says “compare the invoice amount to the supporting purchase order and report any differences,” the report states the differences found. It does not say whether those differences are material, acceptable, or problematic. That interpretive judgment stays with the users of the report, who understand their own context far better than an outside party reviewing isolated data points.
This distinction matters because it shapes both the cost and the usefulness of the work. An AUP engagement can be tightly scoped to a single account, a specific grant, a compliance clause, or a discrete transaction, which keeps it efficient. It is a core offering within audit and assurance services, and it sits alongside audits and reviews as a more targeted alternative.
The Governing Standard: SSAE 19 and AT-C Section 215
Agreed-upon procedures engagements are performed under the attestation standards issued by the AICPA Auditing Standards Board. The current standard is SSAE No. 19, Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements, which superseded the prior AT-C section 215 that had been issued as part of SSAE No. 18. SSAE No. 19 is effective for agreed-upon procedures reports dated on or after July 15, 2021, and early implementation was permitted before that date. You can review the standard directly through the AICPA’s Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 19.
SSAE No. 19 was written to give practitioners and clients more flexibility than the earlier framework allowed. As summarized by the Journal of Accountancy’s reporting on the new standard, the standard removed the requirement that the practitioner obtain a written assertion from the responsible party, and it eliminated the former requirement that intended users take responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures. Instead, the engaging party acknowledges the appropriateness of the procedures before the report is issued.
Two further changes broadened how these engagements can be run. Procedures may now be developed over the course of the engagement rather than being fully specified at the outset, and the practitioner may assist in developing those procedures rather than only executing a list handed to them. SSAE No. 19 also permits general-use reports, where the earlier approach generally restricted distribution. These updates make the service more adaptable to real situations while keeping the fundamental character of the engagement intact: the CPA reports facts, not conclusions.
When to Request an Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagement
An AUP engagement fits situations where a specific question needs independent verification but a broad opinion on financial statements is unnecessary. The common thread is that you already know what you want examined, and you need a credible third party to perform and document that examination. The following scenarios come up often.
- Contract and lease compliance. A landlord may need percentage rent calculations verified, or a franchisor may need to confirm that reported royalties match point-of-sale data.
- Grant and program compliance. Funders and government agencies frequently require procedures over how grant dollars were spent, without commissioning a full program audit.
- Transaction due diligence. A buyer may want specific accounts, inventory counts, or customer balances tested before closing, as part of broader transaction advisory work.
- Regulatory and licensing requirements. Certain regulators and licensing bodies require AUP reports over designated calculations, reserves, or restricted funds.
- Internal control spot checks. Management or a board may want targeted testing of a process, such as payroll disbursements or vendor setup, without a full internal audit.
The value proposition is efficiency and precision. Because the scope is limited to defined procedures, the engagement typically costs less and finishes faster than an audit, and it answers the exact question at hand rather than a general one. When the people relying on the work want transparency into specific numbers rather than a professional judgment about them, an AUP engagement is usually the right fit.
What the Agreed-Upon Procedures Report Contains
The report is the heart of the engagement, and its structure follows SSAE No. 19. It identifies the subject matter and the engaging party, describes the specific procedures that were performed, and presents the findings from each procedure in factual terms. Because the users agreed to the procedures, the report assumes they understand what each step was designed to accomplish.
Several elements are standard. The report states that the engagement was conducted under the attestation standards established by the AICPA. It makes clear that the sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of the parties who agreed to them, and that the practitioner makes no representation about whether the procedures are appropriate for any other purpose. It also includes a statement that the practitioner expresses no opinion or conclusion, which is the single most important line for any reader to absorb.
Findings are described objectively. Rather than “controls are adequate,” an AUP report says something like “we recomputed the depreciation expense for the 12 assets selected and found no exceptions,” or “three of the 40 invoices tested were not supported by an approved purchase order.” The reader decides what those facts mean. This factual discipline is what makes the report reliable and defensible, because the CPA is reporting only what was observed, not an interpretation layered on top of it.
How AUP Findings Differ From an Audit Opinion
The difference between an agreed-upon procedures report and an audit is not a matter of degree. It is a difference in kind. An audit results in an opinion, which is a form of assurance: the auditor gathers sufficient appropriate evidence and concludes whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable framework. The auditor designs the scope using professional judgment and materiality, and the firm stands behind a conclusion.
An AUP engagement delivers none of that. The CPA performs only the procedures that were agreed to, nothing more and nothing less, and reports what those procedures revealed. There is no materiality assessment, no professional opinion, and no overall conclusion about fair presentation. If the agreed procedures happen to miss an area where a problem exists, the report does not and cannot flag it, because testing that area was never part of the scope.
This has practical consequences for how a report should be used. A lender, regulator, or counterparty that needs assurance over a complete set of financial statements should require an audit, not an AUP engagement. Conversely, a party that needs confirmation of specific facts, such as whether restricted funds were spent as required, is well served by agreed-upon procedures and should not pay for the broader scope of an audit. Choosing correctly depends on the decision the report will support, and it is worth discussing the options with your CPA before the work begins. Firms that handle a high volume of compliance-driven procedures, such as those serving the skilled nursing and long-term care industry, routinely help clients determine which service the situation actually calls for.
Getting the Scope Right From the Start
The quality of an agreed-upon procedures engagement depends almost entirely on how well the procedures are written. Vague instructions produce vague findings, while precise, measurable procedures produce a report that answers the question cleanly. Under SSAE No. 19, your CPA can help design the procedures, which is valuable because experienced practitioners know how to frame a step so that the resulting finding is unambiguous and genuinely useful.
Before the engagement begins, the parties confirm the subject matter, the procedures to be performed, and the criteria against which items will be measured. It is worth investing time here, because adding procedures later can require amending the engagement and may extend the timeline. A short planning conversation that nails down exactly what you want tested, and in what detail, pays off in a report that stands on its own.
Conclusion
Agreed-upon procedures engagements give you a focused, cost-effective way to obtain independent verification of specific facts without commissioning a full audit. Performed under SSAE No. 19, they produce a factual report of findings, leaving interpretation to the users who agreed to the procedures and understand their own context. The key is to recognize when you need facts rather than an opinion, then to work with a CPA to scope the procedures carefully. When the question is narrow and specific, an AUP engagement is often the smartest tool available.
