About the area of activity

Public Audit - logo
The National Audit Office carry out public audits in implementing the tasks entrusted to it.

Public audit is an independent and objective assessment carried out by the Supreme Audit Institution in audited entities.

The National Audit Office carry out three types of public audit:

  • Financial audit – where the National Audit Office assess the data in the audited entity's annual (consolidated) financial statements and budget execution reports and issues an independent auditor‘s opinion.
  • Performance audit – where the activities of the audited entity are assessed in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Compliance audit – where it assesses the compliance of the audited entity's activities with legal and/or other requirements and may express an independent auditor's opinion.

In order to improve the performance of the audited entity(ies) and to increase the benefits to society, the results of the public audits are used to formulate proposals - recommendations to address problems identified during the audit. Public audits are an important factor in promoting the efficiency, accountability and effectiveness of public sector institutions and improving the lives of citizens.
   

DOCUMENTS PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO PUBLIC AUDITING

Professional standards and guidelines are essential to ensure the reliability, quality and professionalism of public sector audit. The National Audit Office carry out audits in accordance with the INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements consisting of the INTOSAI Principles (INTOSAI-P), the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) and Guidelines (GUID). Financial audits are also guided by the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants, which are incorporated into INTOSAI's Standards on Financial Auditing (ISSAIs 2000-2899).

In accordance with the requirements of the ISSAIs, ISAs (in the case of financial audits) and INTOSAI Guidelines, the National Audit Office has developed manuals on Financial, Performance, Compliance and Information Technology audits. The Information Technology Audit Manual also takes into account the Information Systems Audit Standards and Guidelines of the International Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA), as well as other ISACA methodological material. The objective of the audit guidance documents prepared by the National Audit Office is to provide and explain the general and procedural requirements for audits in order to ensure the audit quality.

 
AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITY IN PERFORMING FINANCIAL AUDIT

Illustration: Auditor’s responsibility for financial audits

By conducting audits in accordance with International Standards on Auditing and International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions, we use professional judgement and professional scepticism throughout the audit. We also:

  • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the (consolidated) financial and budget implementation accounts, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform procedures in response to those risks, and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for our opinion. Detection risk of a material misstatement due to fraud is greater than detection risk of a material misstatement due to error, as fraud may include deception, forgery, intentional omission, misinterpretation, or override of internal controls;
  • assess the internal control of the entities/group of entities involved in an audit to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's/group of entities' internal control;
  • assess the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related management disclosures;
  • assess the overall presentation, structure and content, including disclosures, of the (consolidated) financial statements and the budget implementation reports and whether they present the underlying transactions and events in a manner that is consistent with the concept of fair presentation.

As part of our group audit, we also obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the financial information or activities of the entities within the group to enable us to express an opinion on the group's consolidated financial statements and budget implementation reports. We are responsible for directing, supervising and performing the group audit. We are solely responsible for expressing our opinion on the audit.

We communicate to those charged with governance, among other things, the scope and timing of the audit and significant audit observations, including significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify in the course of the audit.

Among the matters that we communicate to those charged with governance, we highlight those that were the most significant in the financial audit for the current period and are considered to be key audit matters. We describe such matters in the report if we are not prohibited by law or regulation from disclosing the matter publicly or if, in very limited circumstances, we determine that the matter should not be disclosed because the adverse consequences of disclosure might reasonably be expected to outweigh the benefits to the public.

PLANNING OF PUBLIC AUDIT

Illustration: Planning of public audit

In order to implement the tasks assigned to it, the National Audit Office determine each year the scope of activities in the Annual Activity Plan.

The Institution is independent in deciding which audits or assessments are carried out, and only the Seimas, by its resolution, may assign the National Audit Office to carry out public audit within the scope of its competence.

The institution’s Annual Activity Plan is drawn up in such a way to cover the most important areas of public sector activities and to carryout all public audits and assessments assigned to the National Audit Office by laws and other legal acts. The Annual Activity Plan is approved by the Auditor General after it has been presented to the Seimas Committee on Audit.

 
PUBLIC AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Illustration: Public audit recommendations

In order to maximise the impact of public audits and positive developments in the public sector, public audit recommendations are provided during each audit. Taking into account the extent of changes for the implementation of goals of state policy, public governance and society, they are marked as high, medium and low importance. Recommendations are the possibility of the National Audit Office as the supreme audit institution to initiate processes of improvement of the activities of public sector institutions, increase the value of the public sector to society and benefit to the State.

For the implementation of the recommendations and for monitoring their implementation, each time a plan of implementation of recommendations is being prepared and coordinated with the audited entity, which is part of the public audit report. The plan specifies the changes sought by the implementation of the recommendations, their evaluation indicators and values, the deadlines for the implementation of the recommendations and the measures proposed by the audited entity implementing the recommendations, and other important information. The audited entity informs the National Audit Office of the results of the implementation of the recommendations within the deadlines agreed in the plan of implementation of recommendations.

In order to strengthen the impact of the audit on public finance management and control systems and on the improvement of public administration in audited areas, the National Audit Office carries out regular monitoring of the implementation of recommendations. The results of this monitoring: the status of implementation of the recommendations, the responsible entities and the changes that have taken place following the implementation of the recommendations can be followed in Lithuanian in continuously updated open data on the institution’s website. Twice a year, before the spring and autumn sessions of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the National Audit Office submits reports on the monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations to the Seimas Committee on Audit. The reports review the status of implementation of the audit recommendations of high importance for the past half-year, draw attention to the problems observed when implementing the recommendations, identify a list of laws necessary to implement the recommendations and achieve the impact of the audit. These reports are available on the website of the National Audit Office.

 
COOPERATION

Cooperation icon

When implementing its functions, the National Audit Office cooperates with many institutions, including the Office of the President, Seimas, Government, the Association of Municipal Controllers as well as directly with public sector institutions as present or former audited entities. Cooperation of the National Audit Office with the Seimas is very important in making a positive and effective impact of public audit on public finance and asset management and control system. When exercising parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, the Seimas uses the results of the public audit as one of the parts of the system of parliamentary scrutiny and seek that the entities in which the National Audit Office has carried out public audit implement public audit recommendations. The National Audit Office cooperates most intensively with the Seimas Committee on Audit, which regularly considers public audit reports. Depending on the area audited, audit reports (as well as other products produced in implementing other functions of the institution) are submitted for consideration to other committees and commissions of the Seimas.

To implement advanced methods of budgetary governance and internal control in the public sector close cooperation is maintained with the Ministry of Finance, the Association of Internal Auditors, the Association of Municipal Controllers, municipal control and audit services, the Lithuanian Chamber of Auditors in improving the audit and accounting legislation, public sector audit methodologies, and sharing experience.

The National Audit Office has concluded cooperation agreements with the Bank of Lithuania, the Chief Official Ethics Commission, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Public Procurement Office, the Special Investigation Service, the Financial Crime Investigation Service, the State Tax Inspectorate, the Competition Council, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Vilnius University, Vytautas Magnus University, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuanian Chamber of Auditors, the Association of Municipal Controllers, the Association of Internal Auditors.

The National Audit Office also co-operates with various institutions when submitting conclusions, comments and proposals concerning drafts of laws and other legal acts, considers and prepares conclusions regarding draft decisions of the Government.

The National Audit Office maintains collegiate relations with the academic community: representatives of the institution are regularly invited to give lectures to students of higher education institutions, students of general education schools come to get acquainted with the activities of the institution.

The Institution also invites the general public to cooperate; when annually drawing up a public audit programme and deciding which audit topics to choose, the National Audit Office addresses the public by proposing to contribute to the development of the public audit programme in a specially designed tool for this purpose on the website where it is possible to indicate noticeable public sector failures that the National Audit Office could assess during the audit. Proposals of citizens are evaluated and taken into account when choosing directions and topics of public audit.

The National Audit Office also liaise with its peers in foreign countries – other supreme audit institutions. One of the most important expressions of this cooperation is the cooperative international audit. National Audit Office is an active member of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions INTOSAI and the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions EUROSAI, participates in the work of committees and working groups of these international organisations. Read more about this cooperation in the section Internationality.

Read more

News

  • At the end of 2025, state reserves stood at EUR 6.03 billion, having increased by 24.6 percent over the year.
  • More than 75 percent of the total growth in reserves was attributable to the increase in the SODRA reserve, but this growth does not in itself imply a reduction in long-term risks.
  • The accumulation of reserves by the state is not based on a clear strategic assessment – it has not been determined what level of reserves is sufficient, what risks they are intended to mitigate, or how they should be formed in the long term.
  • The Ministry of Finance, in implementing the National Audit Office’s recommendation, is developing a comprehensive model for the formation and management of state reserves.

Picture for National Audit Office: The state is investing billions in defence, but sees no overall resultAt the end of 2025, the Reserve (Stabilisation) Fund, the State Social Insurance Fund (SODRA) and the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund (PSDF) had accumulated reserves totalling EUR 6.03 billion. Over the course of the year, the total amount of state reserves increased by 24.6 percent, or EUR 1.19 billion. However, as the National Audit Office points out, the accumulation of state reserves is not based on a clear strategic assessment – it has not been determined what level of reserves is sufficient, which risks they are intended to mitigate, or how they should be formed in the long term.
  
“State reserves are an important tool for financial resilience, so it is essential to clearly define the risks they are intended to mitigate, the appropriate level required, and how they should be utilised during a crisis. With growing geopolitical, economic and demographic challenges, the management of reserves must be based on clear principles and long-term planning,” says Auditor General Irena Segalovičienė.

The SODRA reserve accounts for the largest share of the reserves
  
At the end of 2025, the SODRA reserve stood at EUR 4,515.1 million. Over the course of the year, it increased by EUR 897 million, accounting for more than 75 percent of the total growth in state reserves. At the end of the year, the PSDF reserve stood at EUR 723.7 million, while the Reserve (Stabilisation) Fund stood at EUR 791 million, of which EUR 119.5 million is earmarked for radioactive waste management and the construction of a deep geological repository.
  
In the coming years, the SODRA reserve will be supplemented by both contributions received by SODRA from second-pillar pension funds and contributions from the state budget. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, around EUR 1.3 billion was transferred to SODRA. It is important to emphasise that this does not constitute additional revenue, but rather long-term state commitments.

In the National Audit Office’s view, the increased reserve should not be used to take on new permanent commitments, including further pension increases or other decisions that would increase state expenditure in the future, unless sustainable sources of revenue are in place to fund them.

Reserves must also be assessed in the light of long-term demographic changes. It is forecast that by 2050 there will be only two people of working age for every elderly person, whereas in 2025 there were more than three. An analysis carried out by the National Audit Office, as an independent fiscal institution, shows that, if policy on the impact of an ageing population remains unchanged, the SODRA reserve would be exhausted even before 2050.

To achieve long-term and high-quality management of state reserves – a recommendation from the National Audit Office
  
Reserves are accumulated to ensure the state’s financial stability and its ability to meet its obligations during economic or other shocks.
 
In the National Audit Office’s view, given the increasing geopolitical, economic and fiscal risks, reserves must be planned systematically, based on risk analysis, clear sources of funding, priorities for their use and general management principles. This is particularly important in the context of an ageing population and growing long-term liabilities of the social security system.

With a view to strengthening the state’s financial resilience, the National Audit Office recommended last year that the Ministry of Finance systematically review the legal framework governing reserves and establish general principles for their creation and management, linking them to the state’s borrowing policy.
  
In response to the National Audit Office’s recommendation, the Ministry of Finance is developing a systematic model for the formation and management of the country’s reserves. The Ministry has now analysed international practice, is assessing the situation in Lithuania and is preparing proposals for a general model for the formation and management of reserves. The recommendation is planned to be implemented by the end of 2026.
  
Once the recommendation has been implemented, the state will have a comprehensive model for the formation and management of reserves, which will enable reserves to be planned on the basis of risk assessment, their purpose to be defined more clearly, and reserve policy to be linked to the state’s borrowing decisions.

  • There is no single indicator showing progress in modernisation. Although more than half of the national defence system’s annual appropriations are allocated to the modernisation of the armed forces, there is no single indicator that allows the progress of these investments to be assessed. Funding for modernisation is distributed across all nine programmes of the Strategic Action Plan, meaning that decision-makers do not have a single source of information on the results of modernisation.
  • Strategic planning does not reflect the country’s changed security environment. 16 out of 23 Lithuanian Armed Forces capability development plans, which are used to determine the resource requirements for the armed forces’ capabilities, have not been updated for between 4 and 14 years; consequently, they do not fully reflect current defence priorities (such as the establishment of a national division or the hosting of a German brigade). Furthermore, no long-term strategic document at national level enshrines the continuity of funding beyond 2030, even though NATO member states have agreed to aim for funding of at least 5 percent of GDP by 2035.
  • The need for digitalisation. Defence planning data is still managed manually by transferring information between Excel files, which are not even protected by basic document security features. The current financial management system (FinVIS) runs on outdated software from 2009, is unstable and does not provide the functionality required for modern planning and data analysis.

Picture for National Audit Office: The state is investing billions in defence, but sees no overall resultBetween 2023 and 2025, funding for the national defence system increased by 73 percent. In 2025, 3.4 billion euros were allocated to national defence, representing 14.7 percent of the total state budget. More than half of this funding is allocated annually to the modernisation of the armed forces. The National Audit Office’s audit, “Financial management of the National Defence System”, revealed that the current system of financial management, planning and monitoring within the national defence system no longer keeps pace with the rapidly growing scale of funding and the changed geopolitical environment. There is no single indicator showing the results of modernisation; not all long-term strategic planning documents at national level reflect the new defence priorities; and there is a lack of a coherent data management system to support decision-making.
  
“Lithuania is investing more in national defence today than ever before. It is no longer enough simply to know how much money is being allocated. We need to see clearly what capabilities we are building with that money, what progress has been made, and what financial resources will be needed in the future. For this, strategic planning, financial management and data must function as a single system,” says Auditor General Irena Segalovičienė.
  
It is impossible to say whether the modernisation of the armed forces is proceeding according to plan
   
Around 2.3 billion euros is planned to be allocated to the modernisation of the armed forces in 2026 – more than double the amount compared to 2023. This accounts for more than half of the total funding for the national defence system. However, the state is still unable to answer a simple question: is the modernisation proceeding according to plan?

The audit revealed that there is no clear picture of how the modernisation of the armed forces is progressing. Progress is evident only in some parts of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, and there is no overall indicator that would allow the progress of the modernisation of the entire system to be assessed.
  
Funding allocated for modernisation is distributed across nine programmes within the Strategic Action Plan, and more than half of the objectives and indicators are duplicated across different programmes. As the programmes are structured according to military forces and units rather than in terms of the desired outcomes, responsibility for common objectives is spread across several programme coordinators. This makes it difficult to link priorities, funding and results, and decision-makers lack an overall picture of the capabilities being sought, how much they will cost and what progress has been made.
  
Furthermore, in the Programme for the Strengthening and Development of the National Defence System, the modernisation indicators and their target values have not been updated since 2023 (the values for eight indicators have not been increased), even though funding allocated to modernisation has increased significantly since then. It is planned that funding for the modernisation of the armed forces will amount to approximately 2.3 billion euros in 2026, i.e. 1.2 billion euros more than in 2023. As the current indicators were established when defence funding was planned to be considerably lower, they no longer reflect either the current scale of investment or the actual progress of modernisation.
  
Strategic planning is failing to keep pace with rising defence funding
  
Defence funding is growing faster than the strategic documents underpinning it are being updated. Although NATO member states have agreed to allocate at least 5 percent of GDP to defence by 2035, Lithuania’s strategic-level documents mainly plan long-term funding only up to 2030. What will happen after that remains unclear.
  
One example is the plans for the development of military capabilities. As many as 16 out of 23 plans, which set out the military capabilities that need to be developed, have not been updated for between 4 and 14 years. As a result, some of them no longer reflect the changed security situation and today’s defence priorities. The audit also revealed that top-level strategic planning documents do not define key priorities – such as the development of a national division or the hosting of a German brigade – with sufficient precision.
  
The audit also revealed that the current financial planning system is geared towards peacetime and is lengthy and complex. The budget preparation process comprises 19 stages. However, it has not yet been established how the financial management of the national defence system would operate in the event of war or a state of emergency, when decisions would need to be taken much more quickly.
  
Investments worth billions are still managed manually in Excel spreadsheets
  
Decision-makers need data that is readily accessible and reliable. However, the audit revealed that defence planning is still carried out using unlinked information systems and manual processes.
  
Defence planning documents are prepared in unlinked Excel files; these documents are manually transferred from one file to another, making it difficult to take decisions promptly. Inadequate traceability of data changes, and insufficient data security measures increase the risk of errors and data reliability.

In the auditors’ view, the financial resource management system FinVIS, which runs on a 2009 software version, does not fully meet current requirements. Due to incompatibility with updated operating systems, it operates unreliably, increasing the risk of malfunctions and service interruptions. During the audit, 7 out of 10 programme coordinators surveyed indicated that the system’s capabilities for financial management are insufficient.

What needs to be changed to ensure that investments worth billions are managed more efficiently?
  
The National Audit Office recommends reforming the strategic management of the national defence system so that defence priorities, the funding allocated to them and the results achieved are clearly linked:

  • to enshrine long-term defence funding of no less than 5 percent of GDP by 2035 in strategic documents;
  • update the armed forces’ capability development plans in line with the current geopolitical environment;
  • optimise the structure of the programmes within the Strategic Action Plan;
  • develop a unified defence planning information system;
  • set out how the financial management of the national defence system would operate in the event of war or a state of emergency.

Once these changes have been implemented, it will be possible to see the overall progress of the armed forces’ modernisation and to monitor in real time whether the investments, worth billions, are delivering the expected results. Furthermore, decision-makers will be able to plan long-term funding more clearly, make decisions more quickly and ensure that financial management is prepared to operate even in the event of war or a state of emergency.

  • Contracting authorities of the national defence system assessed during the audit, lacked an average of 19 percent of public procurement specialists each year (nearly one in five positions was vacant). The majority of vacant positions (88 percent) were at the Defence Resources Agency.
  • In organisations conducting centralised procurement, an average of 48 percent of employees involved in procurement did not hold a public procurement specialist certification. Although not mandatory, this certification confirms the competence of an employee engaged in public procurement.
  • In all 12 contracting authorities assessed, public procurement plans were amended an average of 14 times per year, although, in the auditors’ opinion, some of the needs could have been planned in advance.
  • Controls over high-risk procurements are insufficient: 6 of the 12 organisations evaluated did not assess all high-risk procurements, and 24 of the 36 procurements reviewed were found to be noncompliant with legal requirements.

Picture for National Audit Office: Urgent action is needed to bridge the defence procurement expertise gapAuditor General Irena Segalovičienė presented the results of the audit “Funds allocated to the national defence system for the procurement of goods, services, and works for 2021–2025.”
  
Over the past five years, the value of public procurements carried out within the national defence system amounted to EUR 10.8 billion. However, the national defence system is facing this growing volume of procurements with a shortage of public procurement specialists and a lack of their expertise.
  
 
An audit conducted by the National Audit Office of “Funds allocated to the national defence system for the procurement of goods, services, and works for 2021–2025” revealed that nearly one-fifth of the public procurement specialist positions in the organisations assessed remain unfilled, and some of the employees carrying out procurements do not hold a public procurement specialist certification that would confirm their high level of competence.
 
“When we talk about defence funding, the focus is usually on money. However, money alone does not turn plans into actual capabilities. This requires people who are able to professionally organise procurements, manage risks, and ensure that the resources needed by the armed forces are delivered on time. As defence investments grow, the expertise of public procurement specialists is becoming one of the most important factors for success. Therefore, it is essential to act without delay to build the capabilities needed to meet the system’s requirements,” says Auditor General Irena Segalovičienė.

One of the biggest challenges is the shortage of specialists and appropriate qualifications
  
In the organisations assessed for 2021–2025, an average of 84 public procurement specialist positions were established, but by the end of the year, there was a shortage of approximately 19 percent of specialists. The majority of the unfilled positions (88 percent) were at the Defence Resources Agency. According to the agency’s data, recruitment processes often failed due to a lack of candidates or because applicants did not meet the minimum score requirement. Due to the chronic shortage of public procurement specialists, procurement processes may take longer, increasing the likelihood of errors and the risk that the army will not receive the necessary resources on time.
  
It was also found that, in many cases, public procurement within the national defence system is carried out by employees who do not hold public procurement specialist certificates. Although a public procurement specialist certification is not mandatory for all employees, it confirms the competence of the employee conducting public procurement, and starting in 2023, at least one member of the Public Procurement Commission must hold such a certificate. An assessment of the selected public procurement cases revealed that in all cases, the commission included a member who held the certificate.

However, between 2023 and 2025, an average of 48 percent of employees who conducted public procurement did not hold the certificate. In the auditors’ opinion, contracting authorities seeking high-quality procurement should rely on specialists who hold the certificate. When procurement is carried out by employees who do not hold a certificate confirming their public procurement competencies, the risk of compromised procurement quality and inconsistent application of legal requirements increases.
  
Procurement plans are constantly changing, and risks are not always assessed
  
The audit revealed that insufficient attention is paid to procurement planning and risk management within the national defence system. In the organisations assessed, procurement plans were changed an average of 14 times per year. The procurement plans of some contracting authorities assessed during the audit increased several-fold over the course of a year; for example, the value of the Defence Resources Agency’s 2023 procurement plan increased 36-fold. The plans were amended due to changes in the geopolitical situation, new needs, the receipt of additional funding, the repetition of failed procurements, and other factors. However, in the auditors’ opinion, some of these needs could have been planned in advance. In the auditors’ view, the fact that procurement groups significant in terms of both the number and value of procurements were not planned at the beginning of the year indicates that the process for identifying procurement needs is not functioning well enough, hinders targeted procurement management, and increases the risk of procurement delays and insufficient competition in procurements.
 
Control mechanisms for high-risk procurements did not function in all cases. Six out of the 12 organisations assessed did not evaluate all procedures included on the lists of high-risk procurements, even though these procurements should be the focus of the most attention. Of the 36 procurements selected, 24 were found to be noncompliant with legal requirements, and 17 procurements were found to have non-compliances of high or medium significance.

What the National Audit Office recommends
  
The National Audit Office recommended that the Ministry of National Defence establish a permanent program for the professional development and certification of public procurement specialists in the national defence system, implement a system to motivate specialists, and provide opportunities to engage experts when planning and conducting procurements, and to ensure preventive controls for all high-risk procurements.
  
To ensure consistent management and accessibility of procurement data, it was recommended to consolidate procurement data management and ensure interfaces with other information systems relevant to procurement management. It is also recommended to establish procurement efficiency indicators and create conditions for an objective assessment of the results of the public procurement model.
  
In the auditors’ assessment, as defence funding increases, the public procurement system must ensure not only the prompt supply of military equipment but also that investments amounting to billions are managed professionally, transparently, and efficiently.