Wednesday, 7 January 2026
An advisory firm has proposed a multi-year financial verification covering the 2022–2024 period, structured as a remote review with an option for on-site work at additional cost. The assignment would examine the accuracy of accounting records over three full financial years, with a fixed fee per year and full prepayment required. Travel and other out-of-pocket expenses would be charged separately.
In headline terms, the total cost of the engagement amounts to PLN 34,000 net. Within the broader Polish advisory market, this level of pricing is generally consistent with entry-level, finance-only due diligence mandates, particularly where three historical periods are reviewed. Publicly available benchmarks indicate that basic financial reviews often fall within a wide range, while more comprehensive, multi-disciplinary assignments typically command significantly higher fees.
However, the assessment changes when the size and activity level of the underlying business are taken into account. In this case, the company in question is very small and currently generates little or no income. For such entities, market practice in Poland tends to favour more limited and lower-cost forms of verification. Typical services for micro-enterprises include basic compilations of accounts or narrowly defined agreed-upon procedures, usually priced at a fraction of the cost associated with transaction-driven due diligence.
Market comparisons suggest that, for businesses with minimal operations, multi-year financial checks are commonly delivered at substantially lower price points unless there is a pending transaction, financing event or material risk exposure that justifies a more extensive review. Against this backdrop, a PLN 34,000 fee may be seen as disproportionate to the economic scale and risk profile of a dormant or low-activity company.
Beyond pricing, advisors note that clarity around scope and outputs is critical. Standard market practice would typically require explicit definition of deliverables, methodology, timelines, team composition, liability provisions and exclusions, particularly where the work is not intended to substitute for a statutory audit. Without such clarification, it can be difficult for clients to assess whether the resulting report will be suitable for decision-making or third-party reliance.
Overall, while the proposed fee level aligns with market norms for finance-only due diligence in mid-market situations, its suitability for a very small, non-income-generating business is less clear. In such cases, a narrower and more proportionate form of financial review is often considered sufficient, with more extensive work reserved for scenarios where transaction value or financing requirements warrant it.
© 2026 cij.world
