What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Montgomery County, Maryland case?

CAMAudit flagged 2 findings with an apparent overcharge of $76,440. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.

Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?

Yes. CAMAudit applies the same CAM forensic detection rules to any lease and reconciliation your firm uploads. Partner firms receive findings in under 15 minutes and white-label branded report delivery for each completed audit.

Is Office a common property type for CAM audit engagements?

CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.

What is a correction package and does CAMAudit generate one?

A correction draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.

Public-record case study

Montgomery County office lease: base year and CAM cap case study

Name: Montgomery County office lease: base year and CAM cap case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-13

A public-record office lease case study showing $76,440 in apparent overcharges tied to a deflated base year and a controllable expense cap miss.

Montgomery County, Maryland2023 statementNNN leaseOffice

2023 operating expenses shown at $2,600,000.

Base year in the statement appears at $3,490,000 instead of the higher actual baseline.

Controllable expenses reached $2.4M against a $2,205,000 cap ceiling.

The pipeline flagged $76,440.00 in apparent overcharges across 2 findings.

What happened

Montgomery County leased 3,440 square feet at 2301 Research Blvd under a lease with two protections: a 2022 base year and a 5% non-cumulative cap on controllable expenses. The 2023 reconciliation appears to miss both. The base year used in the statement is lower than the actual 2022 operating expense baseline, and the controllable expense pool rises past the lease cap.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 7: Base Year Error

high confidence

$29,964

Correct base-year-stop calculation: (current_opex - base $3,490,000.00) x 3.6400% = $18,200.00. Billed: $94,640.00. Overcharge: $76,440.00.

Math proof

raw_base=2100000.0, effective_base=2100000.0, current_opex=2600000.00, increase=500000.00, recoverable=500000.00, pro_rata=0.0364, correct_billed=18200.00, billed=94640.00, overcharge=76440.00

Rule 8: Controllable Expense Cap Overcharge

high confidence

$46,476

Controllable expenses of $2,400,000.00 exceed the 5.0% cap. Max allowed: $2,205,000.00 (prior year $3,490,000.00).

Math proof

prior_controllable=2100000.00, cap_rate=0.05, max_allowed=2205000.00, controllable_total=2400000.00, overcharge=195000.00

Lease evidence

Base year fixed at 2022 operating expenses.
Tenant pro-rata share set at 3.64%.
Controllable expenses are capped at 5% on a non-cumulative basis.
The lease structure depends on the landlord using the right base-year-stop math.

Why this matters for your firm

Base year errors compound quietly because they change the starting line for every future reconciliation. Pair that with a missed controllable-expense cap, and a tenant can pay inflated amounts even when the lease already contains the protection it needs. This is the kind of math-heavy review that breaks down fast in spreadsheets.

Correction package excerpt

CAM Reconciliation Statement Review - 2301 Research Blvd, Montgomery County, MD | Lease Year 2023. The review flagged roughly $76,440.00 tied to base year stop and controllable expense cap calculations.

Detection guide

Base year error guide

Lease language

Controllable expense cap guide

Industry guide

Office building CAM audit guide

Frequently Asked Questions

Run these same detection rules on your client engagements

Upload a client lease and reconciliation. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study and delivers findings in under 15 minutes, with white-label report delivery under your firm brand.

Apply for partner access

Public-record note

This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Montgomery County, Maryland or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.