Internal audit announced
Internal audit will review Sundance Lake Loop procurement and payments, with a focus on after-the-fact purchase orders and change orders. Auditor: Sam Okafor.
Filed under:sundance/shared
Internal audit asks who approved what, when, and on what basis.
Project record
Sam OkaforJordan Kowalczyk
Sam Okafor to Jordan Kowalczyk · 10:00
Hi Jordan,
I am reviewing after-the-fact commitments on the Sundance Lake Loop and need documentation on PO 4500088367 issued to Ernie Bouchard for $1,800. The purchase order was created after the work took place on 24-25 September 2025, and the vendor master lists no GST number and a Hotmail address. Could you clarify who approved this work, on what date it was authorized, and what the specific commercial basis was at the time?
Thanks,
Sam
I am reviewing after-the-fact commitments on the Sundance Lake Loop and need documentation on PO 4500088367 issued to Ernie Bouchard for $1,800. The purchase order was created after the work took place on 24-25 September 2025, and the vendor master lists no GST number and a Hotmail address. Could you clarify who approved this work, on what date it was authorized, and what the specific commercial basis was at the time?
Thanks,
Sam
Assistant's note: Supply chain records show Ernie Bouchard was set up as a one-time non-GST small supplier under single-source justification for urgent boat access for the CER aquatic survey, with service confirmed by PM Wes Haldane.
Recalled from:contracts/other or vendor/bouchard 1 iteminvoices/queue 1 iteminvoices/approved 1 itemsupply/vendors/files 1 itemsundance/shared 1 itempayments or vendor/bouchard 1 item
Jordan Kowalczyk to Sam Okafor · 10:45
Hi Sam,
The commercial basis was two days of boat, motor, and guiding services on Sundance Lake for the pre-freeze-up aquatic survey on September 24 and 25, 2025, at $750/day ($1,500) plus $300 fuel, totaling $1,800. Wes Haldane verbally authorized Ernie on September 22 under his $25,000 field approval delegation, which was funded under the survey access allowance in CO-01. The commitment itself originated in that phone call between Wes and Ernie, but Wes subsequently provided written confirmation of the work, rates, and dates so supply chain could set up the business partner record and push through after-the-fact PO 4500088367. If you need further background on the original verbal discussion itself, Wes would have the direct details.
Thanks,
Jordan
The commercial basis was two days of boat, motor, and guiding services on Sundance Lake for the pre-freeze-up aquatic survey on September 24 and 25, 2025, at $750/day ($1,500) plus $300 fuel, totaling $1,800. Wes Haldane verbally authorized Ernie on September 22 under his $25,000 field approval delegation, which was funded under the survey access allowance in CO-01. The commitment itself originated in that phone call between Wes and Ernie, but Wes subsequently provided written confirmation of the work, rates, and dates so supply chain could set up the business partner record and push through after-the-fact PO 4500088367. If you need further background on the original verbal discussion itself, Wes would have the direct details.
Thanks,
Jordan
Reviewed by the assistant before sending
Sam was not a party to the conversation; sharing is justified by Supply Chain's formal review of after-the-fact PO documentation. conversation memory (Jordan Kowalczyk, Wes Haldane)
Suggested: Specify that the verbal authorization occurred on 22 September 2025 and was noted in Wes's field book rather than being completely unrecorded, backed by Wes's written confirmation for PO 4500088367, with commercial terms of $750/day for 2 days plus $300 fuel coded to CO-01.
Recalled from:conversation memory 5 itemscontracts/other or vendor/bouchard 1 item
Sam Okafor to Jordan Kowalczyk · 11:30
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for the breakdown. Please forward the written confirmation from Wes detailing the dates, scope, and rates that was used to initiate the vendor setup and PO 4500088367. The vendor setup file already confirms Ernie Bouchard's small-supplier status regarding GST, so I just need Wes's supporting communication to complete the audit trail for the after-the-fact commitment.
Thanks,
Sam
Thanks for the breakdown. Please forward the written confirmation from Wes detailing the dates, scope, and rates that was used to initiate the vendor setup and PO 4500088367. The vendor setup file already confirms Ernie Bouchard's small-supplier status regarding GST, so I just need Wes's supporting communication to complete the audit trail for the after-the-fact commitment.
Thanks,
Sam
Recalled from:conversation memory 2 itemscontracts/other or vendor/bouchard 1 iteminvoices/approved 1 itemprivate notes 1 itemcontracts/other 1 item
Jordan Kowalczyk to Sam Okafor · 12:15
Hi Sam,
I have forwarded Wes's written confirmation email below, which outlines the dates, scope, and rates that Tomás used for the vendor setup and after-the-fact PO 4500088367. If you have any remaining questions about the original verbal authorization itself from September 22, you will need to check directly with Wes.
Thanks,
Jordan
I have forwarded Wes's written confirmation email below, which outlines the dates, scope, and rates that Tomás used for the vendor setup and after-the-fact PO 4500088367. If you have any remaining questions about the original verbal authorization itself from September 22, you will need to check directly with Wes.
Thanks,
Jordan
Reviewed by the assistant before sending
Sam was not a participant in that conversation, but sharing it is justified by his internal audit need to document the authorization and paper trail for after-the-fact PO 4500088367. conversation memory of Jordan Kowalczyk, Tomás Ferreira, Wes Haldane
Suggested: You can forward Wes's confirmation email to Sam; it fulfills his audit requirement for the PO documentation.
Recalled from:conversation memory 6 items
Sam OkaforWes Haldane
Sam Okafor to Wes Haldane · 09:00
Morning, Wes. I'm looking into PO 4500088367 for Ernie Bouchard, and I'd like to understand the start of that commitment. When did you first engage him, and on what basis was he brought on?
Recalled from:private notes 1 itemconversation memory 4 itemscontracts/other or vendor/bouchard 1 itemsupply/vendors/files 1 item
Wes Haldane to Sam Okafor · 09:01
Morning, Sam. Let me pull up my log from September 22nd - I spoke to Ernie directly and gave him the verbal go-ahead for the aquatic survey on September 24th and 25th at seven-fifty a day plus fuel, totaling eighteen hundred. I had it noted to get a change order line and his vendor setup pushed through within five days, though it sat in my field notes at the time.
Assistant's note: PO 4500088367 was funded against the existing $2,400 site access allowance in approved CO-01 using Tomás Ferreira's single-source justification, rather than requiring a new change order.
Recalled from:conversation memory 4 itemsprivate notes 2 items
Wes Haldane to Sam Okafor · 09:02
Honestly, that call was only ever written in my daybook, so it wasn't logged anywhere central you could see. I completely blew past the five-day paperwork deadline on it, so Ernie didn't get paid until supply chain worked up the justification and I gave the formal written sign-off.
Recalled from:conversation memory 8 itemsprivate notes 2 items
Sam Okafor to Wes Haldane · 09:03
Understood on the paperwork timing. Why was a boat specifically required for the aquatic survey on Sundance Lake?
Recalled from:conversation memory 3 itemsprivate notes 1 itemcontracts/other or vendor/bouchard 1 item
Wes Haldane to Sam Okafor · 09:04
We had the 60-day CER condition deadline hanging over us before a mid-November construction start, and there was zero road access out there across the muskeg before freeze-up. Ernie's boat from the private landing was literally the only practical way to get the survey crew onto the water in time.
Recalled from:conversation memory 3 itemsprivate notes 1 itemsundance/shared 1 item
Sam Okafor to Wes Haldane · 09:05
That makes sense on the access constraint. What documentation do we have on file confirming Ernie actually completed the work on the lake before his invoice was approved?
Assistant's note: Wes himself confirmed the service entry in SAP and provided the written confirmation of dates and scope to supply chain for PO 4500088367.
Recalled from:conversation memory 2 itemssupply/vendors/files 1 itemprivate notes 1 iteminvoices/queue 1 item
Wes Haldane to Sam Okafor · 09:06
I'll have to double-check exactly what's sitting in SAP, but AP had his handwritten invoice for eighteen hundred covering those two days, and I sent written confirmation verifying he did the work on the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth. If you need the field crew's daily survey logs or timesheets to back it up, I can pull those up from the project file.
Recalled from:conversation memory 10 items
Sam Okafor to Wes Haldane · 09:07
Yes, please pull and forward those daily survey logs and your written confirmation. That will give us the direct substantiation we need alongside the service entry to close out the audit trail on this PO.
Assistant's note: Jordan Kowalczyk already forwarded Wes's written confirmation email to you yesterday, so you only need him to pull the daily survey logs.
Recalled from:conversation memory 7 itemsprivate notes 1 iteminvoices/approved 1 iteminvoices/queue 1 item
Sam OkaforJordan KowalczykWes Haldane
Sam Okafor to Jordan Kowalczyk, Wes Haldane · 14:00
Hi Jordan,
I am reviewing the January progress billing workflow for Muskeg Mainline Constructors under PO 4500087312. Records show invoice 4471 ($19,152,000) was approved on 3 February and remained approved on 20 February alongside replacement invoice 4471-R ($19,075,200), which was received on 19 February. Our data shows a payment block was subsequently requested by the project administrator on 21 February ahead of the 26 February payment run. Could you walk me through who initially flagged the duplication, how close invoice 4471 came to being disbursed, and what controls prevented both from executing on the 26th?
Thanks,
Sam
I am reviewing the January progress billing workflow for Muskeg Mainline Constructors under PO 4500087312. Records show invoice 4471 ($19,152,000) was approved on 3 February and remained approved on 20 February alongside replacement invoice 4471-R ($19,075,200), which was received on 19 February. Our data shows a payment block was subsequently requested by the project administrator on 21 February ahead of the 26 February payment run. Could you walk me through who initially flagged the duplication, how close invoice 4471 came to being disbursed, and what controls prevented both from executing on the 26th?
Thanks,
Sam
Reviewed by the assistant before sending
Wes Haldane is not cleared for invoices/approved or payments scopes; this AP workflow inquiry should be directed to Jordan Kowalczyk unless Wes has a specific operational need. invoices/approved, payments
Invoice 4471-R was received on 19 February 2026; 20 February was the date both invoices appeared approved for the 26 February payment run. invoices/queue
Suggested: Send this inquiry directly to Jordan Kowalczyk, omitting Wes Haldane unless you have an accepted business reason to disclose AP queue details to him. Clarify that 4471-R was received on 19 February (and shown approved alongside 4471 on 20 February). Note also that records show the project administrator placed a payment block on 4471 on 21 February before reversal on 26 February.
Recalled from:invoices/approved 1 iteminvoices/queue or vendor/muskeg 1 itempayments 1 itempayments or vendor/muskeg 1 itemconversation memory 3 itemsinvoices/queue 1 item
Jordan Kowalczyk to Sam Okafor, Wes Haldane · 14:45
Hi Sam,
I flagged the discrepancy on invoice 4471 during invoice review on 3 February - Muskeg billed 5 days of cold-weather standby ($192,000) when the contract terms mandate a 48-hour deductible, leaving only 3 payable days ($115,200). Because that standby amount exceeded Wes's $25,000 field approval limit, it required a formal change order, which led to CO-03 being executed on 11 February to amend the PO. Once replacement invoice 4471-R arrived, I placed the payment block on original invoice 4471 in SAP on 21 February, five full days ahead of the 26 February payment run, so it was never in danger of releasing.
Regards,
Jordan
I flagged the discrepancy on invoice 4471 during invoice review on 3 February - Muskeg billed 5 days of cold-weather standby ($192,000) when the contract terms mandate a 48-hour deductible, leaving only 3 payable days ($115,200). Because that standby amount exceeded Wes's $25,000 field approval limit, it required a formal change order, which led to CO-03 being executed on 11 February to amend the PO. Once replacement invoice 4471-R arrived, I placed the payment block on original invoice 4471 in SAP on 21 February, five full days ahead of the 26 February payment run, so it was never in danger of releasing.
Regards,
Jordan
Recalled from:conversation memory 3 itemsinvoices/queue or vendor/muskeg 1 item
Wes Haldane to Sam Okafor, Jordan Kowalczyk · 15:30
Hi Sam,
To give you the context on why Muskeg billed it that way, I spoke with Darcy on 19 January during that deep freeze when the spread was shut down. I gave him some informal reassurance that we'd take care of standby costs to keep the crews from walking, and he took that as an agreement Chinook would cover the full five days ($192,000) instead of applying the 48-hour deductible. That's well past my $25k field approval limit anyway, so once Jordan caught it against the contract language, we had to sort it out formally through CO-03 for the three payable days ($115,200).
Wes
To give you the context on why Muskeg billed it that way, I spoke with Darcy on 19 January during that deep freeze when the spread was shut down. I gave him some informal reassurance that we'd take care of standby costs to keep the crews from walking, and he took that as an agreement Chinook would cover the full five days ($192,000) instead of applying the 48-hour deductible. That's well past my $25k field approval limit anyway, so once Jordan caught it against the contract language, we had to sort it out formally through CO-03 for the three payable days ($115,200).
Wes
Reviewed by the assistant before sending
Neither Sam Okafor nor Jordan Kowalczyk was a participant in the conversation. conversation memory of Wes Haldane
Suggested: Explain that during the 19 January call you gave Darcy informal reassurance to get the spread moving, which Darcy mistook for an agreement to pay all five standby days ($192,000) rather than the three payable days ($115,200) permitted after the contract's 48-hour weather deductible, noting that full coverage would have exceeded your $25,000 field limit anyway.
Recalled from:conversation memory 1 item
Sam Okafor to Jordan Kowalczyk, Wes Haldane · 16:15
Hi Jordan, Hi Wes,
Thank you both for clarifying the timeline and context. Based on this review, I am noting two audit findings for the Sundance Lake Loop file: first, any commitments over the PM’s $25,000 threshold require an executed change order before work or standby is agreed, whereas the five-day follow-up allowance applies strictly to field approvals under $25,000; second, whenever a replacement invoice is submitted, the approval on the original superseded invoice must be reversed in SAP immediately upon receipt rather than waiting to place a payment block ahead of the disbursement run.
Thanks,
Sam
Thank you both for clarifying the timeline and context. Based on this review, I am noting two audit findings for the Sundance Lake Loop file: first, any commitments over the PM’s $25,000 threshold require an executed change order before work or standby is agreed, whereas the five-day follow-up allowance applies strictly to field approvals under $25,000; second, whenever a replacement invoice is submitted, the approval on the original superseded invoice must be reversed in SAP immediately upon receipt rather than waiting to place a payment block ahead of the disbursement run.
Thanks,
Sam
Recalled from:conversation memory 4 itemssundance/changes or vendor/muskeg 1 item