Addressing Gaps in Evidence: Internal Audit Team's Response

B.

When external experts are used on an IT audit engagement, it is important for the internal audit team to review their work to ensure its quality and completeness. In this case, the internal audit team has identified gaps in the evidence provided by the external experts that may have impacted their conclusions.

Given this situation, the BEST course of action for the internal audit team would be to report a scope limitation in their conclusions. This means that the internal audit team should document the issues they have identified and clearly communicate to stakeholders the limitations of the audit findings.

Option A, engaging another expert to conduct the same testing, is not the best course of action in this situation because it would be expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, it may not necessarily address the gaps in evidence identified by the internal audit team.

Option B, recommending the external experts conduct additional testing, may be appropriate in some cases. However, it would only be appropriate if the gaps in evidence are specific and limited in scope. If the gaps are more widespread, then this option may not be effective.

Option D, escalating to senior management, may be appropriate if the gaps in evidence are significant and have a material impact on the audit findings. However, it is not the BEST course of action in this situation because it may create unnecessary escalation and conflict if the issues are not deemed to be significant by senior management.

Therefore, the BEST course of action for the internal audit team is to report a scope limitation in their conclusions. This communicates the limitations of the audit findings while providing stakeholders with a transparent and accurate assessment of the audit engagement.