Denver auditor seeks $658,850 more for DIA audits through 2029
The proposed amendment would raise Baker Tilly’s contract to $1.6 million, but the resolution does not clarify how its listed 2026-2028 audit years align with the contract term.
Denver’s Auditor’s Office is asking the City Council to add $658,850 to Baker Tilly US LLP’s contract for auditing Denver International Airport finances and extend the agreement through Dec. 31, 2029. The amendment would increase the contract’s total value from $946,000 to $1,604,850, according to the resolution request.
The request describes the added work as audits for 2026, 2027 and 2028, but does not say whether those labels refer to calendar or fiscal years. Its scope refers to audits for “each fiscal year for which an audit is requested” without mapping the listed years to specific fiscal-year ending dates.
The request also does not explain why 2026 is described as one of three “additional audit years” when the existing agreement runs through Dec. 31, 2026. Its contract-terms worksheet lists the current term as Dec. 20, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2026, and the proposed amended term as Dec. 20, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2029. The amendment would extend the existing agreement rather than create a new three-year contract beginning in 2026.
The additional work would cover annual audits of the Denver Airport Enterprise Fund’s financial statements and audits of the airport’s Passenger Facility Charge Program for each requested fiscal year. The request says Baker Tilly was selected through a competitive process and has previously provided audit services to the city.
The resolution does not break down the additional $658,850 by audit year or work category, and does not cite prior audit findings, control deficiencies, compliance problems, risks or corrective actions as a reason for the extension. It says the engagement does not include an opinion on whether supplementary information is fairly stated in relation to the financial statements as a whole.
Baker Tilly matter 26-1167 was listed as a consent item on the Governance and Intergovernmental Relations agenda for Aug. 11. The agenda says, “Committee not meeting. Consent agenda included.” The listing shows the amendment was scheduled for consent consideration, not that it had been approved.
As of Aug. 9, no matter-specific date for full City Council consideration was verified in the available records. The city’s August meeting calendar lists a full Council meeting for Aug. 10 but does not establish that the Baker Tilly amendment is on that agenda. No approval, rejection or other final action was verified by the reporting cutoff.