Built on the form the genre has settled on
Actuarial valuations of public-employer benefit obligations have a conventional architecture, visible in reports published by governments that commission them. We follow it because your reviewers, including the Comptroller in CGFS, will recognize it, and because it survives audit.
Government valuations under IPSAS 39
IPSAS 39 is drawn directly from IAS 19 and governs public-sector employee benefits. Published valuations prepared for government clients under that standard follow a consistent pattern: highlights and comparative results first, then the basis of valuation, then the professional statement, then appendices carrying assumptions, methods, plan provisions, participant data, and a client certification of the data relied on.
International staff plans
Multi-employer international staff plans publish valuations that frame the sustainability question the way this RFQ frames it: not merely what is the obligation, but is the current contribution rate sufficient, expressed against pensionable payroll. We adopt that framing for Task (b).
Professional standards
The report is written to satisfy the applicable actuarial communication standards, which govern identification of the responsible actuary, required disclosures, reliance on data supplied by others, and any deviation from standard practice. This is what makes the certification signable rather than decorative.
Contents
Every RFQ report element is mapped to a section, so acceptance review is a checklist rather than a search.
| Section | What it contains | RFQ element |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Report highlights | Purpose, scope, and a comparative summary of results against the prior review: obligation, plan assets, funded position, service cost, and the assumptions that drive them. The financial condition of the plan, stated in the first two pages. | 2(e), 2(i) |
| 2. Certifying actuary and qualifications | Name, credential, professional body, and the basis on which the actuary is qualified to render this opinion. | 2(a) |
| 3. Basis of valuation | Data relied on and its source, with explicit statements of what was verified and what was relied on as supplied. Plan provisions summary. Responsibility for data accuracy stated plainly. | 2(b), 2(f) |
| 4. Actuarial assumptions | Each financial and demographic assumption, how it was derived, its public source where one exists, and the alternatives considered. Where the Embassy or CGFS did not adopt our recommendation, both bases are disclosed and the effect quantified. | 2(b), 2(g) |
| 5. Actuarial methods | Projected unit credit, benefit attribution, measurement conventions, and the limits of what a point-in-time valuation can tell you. | 2(b) |
| 6. Valuation results under IAS 19 | Defined benefit obligation, service cost, interest cost, funded status, vested and non-vested split, movement in the obligation over the period, and actuarial gains and losses analyzed by source. | 2(h), 2(i) |
| 7. Plan assets and investment performance | Audited asset values with the basis of valuation stated (fair, historical, surrender), investment policy, performance for the period against market experience, and significant activity affecting assets. | 2(f), 2(k) |
| 8. Financial conformity review | Contributions, credited interest, benefit payments and fees tested against the plan's own terms year by year, with every exception quantified, aged, and paired with a remedy. Conforming items reported as conforming. | Task (c) |
| 9. Sensitivity analysis | Effect on the obligation of movements in discount rate, salary growth, retirement age, and mortality basis, in the tabular form used by published valuations, with commentary on which assumptions carry the most risk and which are least reliable for forward planning. | Task (e) |
| 10. Belgian legal compliance | Deviations from Belgian defined benefit legislation; the three changes introduced by the Law of 18 December 2015 tested individually; and anticipated changes in law or practice with quantified impact where it can be measured. | Tasks (i), (j) |
| 11. Conclusions and sustainability | Surplus or deficit with the reasoning that supports it, the threats to the solvency of the fund, and the measures that should be undertaken to avert them. | 2(c), 2(e), 2(j), Task (f) |
| 12. Actuarial certification | The signed certification. | 2(d) |
| Appendices | Participant data summary with prior-period comparison · plan provisions in full · assumption tables · expected benefit cash flows · Embassy certification of the census supplied · any other pertinent comment. | 2(l) |
Three conventions we adopt deliberately
The client certifies the data
Published valuations include a short certification in which the employer confirms the participant data supplied is complete and accurate. We will ask the Embassy to sign the same thing. It is not bureaucracy: it fixes responsibility where the knowledge actually sits, and it protects both parties if a census error surfaces later.
Assumptions are a single scenario, and we say so
A valuation presents one path through a wide range of possible futures. The report states that plainly, shows how sensitive the result is to the choices made, and resists the impression of false precision. Sensitivity analysis is not an appendix here; it is how the result should be read.
Measurement and prediction are separated
A valuation is a snapshot of financial condition at a date. It does not predict the plan's future or guarantee its soundness. Where the RFQ asks for forward-looking recommendations, we provide them, and we mark clearly where measurement ends and judgment begins.
Delivery
Draft, then final
Draft Survey Report in English, two copies to the Contracting Officer's Representative. The Government confirmed the draft is due within 90 days of award and may be extended; we commit to 30 working days. Your comments within 15 days of receipt. Final report within 15 days of your approval of the draft. The work plan banks four working weeks of float against the draft date.
And a working model, not just a document
The valuation is built in a model we maintain, of the kind demonstrated on this site. At the close of the engagement the Embassy has a report it can hand to auditors and a reusable basis for the next review, rather than a PDF whose workings live inside a vendor.