You are looking at a statement that does not match what the asset should be earning. The operator has an explanation, but it does not reconcile against the traffic you see in the lanes. Or the deposits and the activity have quietly drifted apart, and you cannot prove why. Or nothing looks wrong on paper, which is exactly what worries you. Owners, cities, and operators come to us at this point: the numbers stopped explaining themselves, and a management review will not settle it.
A tenant validation device programmed one step wrong discounts every transaction it touches.
An exit gate set to auto-vend after a set number of intercom rings lets cars out unpaid, all day, every day.
A credential register nobody reconciles bills the wrong parties.
Voids, manual gate vends, and rate overrides accumulate in the system journal where no one reads them.
We reconstruct the operation rather than observe it. The audit accounts for every ticket, every credential, and every override until the gap between what happened and what was reported has a cause and a dollar figure.
Rebuild ticket populations by serial sequence, so every ticket issued is matched against every ticket closed. This is how one engagement surfaced 1,507 missing tickets.
Reconcile keycard and credential registers against billing, entry by entry.
Read the system journals to the second: voids, manual vends, rate overrides, shift patterns.
Run live control tests. Our staff produce tickets without vehicles, exit unpaid, and run validations to prove which controls actually hold.
Enforce the contract, computing exactly what the operator owes under the agreement in force, and price every finding with a severity and an owner.
Return and re-audit against our own projected numbers, so the correction is verified rather than assumed.
A priced list of findings, each with a cause, a recommended correction written to be actionable inside your current operating contract, an assigned owner, and a date. Operator responses are appended verbatim, so the finding is one the counterparty has seen and answered. Then we come back and measure whether the number moved. Across 150+ comprehensive audits, the average return is 5 to 10x the cost of the audit. In one case a $7,000 audit collected a $5,500 vendor credit before any other finding was implemented, returning 79 percent of that audit's fee in cash. The $7,000 is the price of that one audit. Fees scale with the asset, the lane count, and the scope, so no single audit fee prices a multi-asset program.
A forensic reconciliation of a parking operation's revenue controls: tickets, credentials, validations, rates, and cash, tested against what the system journals and the bank deposits actually show. The output is a priced list of findings with causes, owners, and dates, not an observations memo.
Reconstruct before you patch. Leakage hides in specifics: a validation device programmed wrong, an exit gate that auto-vends, a credential register nobody reconciles. Price each finding, assign the correction, then re-audit to confirm the number moved. The re-audit is the step most programs skip.
Across 150+ comprehensive audits, the average is a 5 to 10x return on the cost of the audit. These are JDE project records, not industry estimates.
Send the asset type, the lane count, and the symptom: a variance, a suspicion, a renewal date. We will return a scope and a fee, and we will say plainly if an audit is not the right instrument. If the statements reconcile and the controls hold, that is the finding. Start a conversation
All figures on this page are JDE results from JDE project records.