What findings did CAMAudit surface in the United States Postal Service case?

CAMAudit flagged 1 finding with an apparent overcharge of $2,340. 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 Retail strip center 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

USPS Mt Vernon Plaza: pro-rata share error case study

Name: USPS Mt Vernon Plaza: pro-rata share error case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-13

A public-record strip-center case study showing how a 4.50% statement share versus a 4.24% lease share produced a $2,340.15 apparent overcharge.

United States Postal Service2020 statementNNN leaseRetail strip center

2020 reconciliation used a 4.50% tenant share.

The total CAM pool was roughly $900,056.

The high-confidence pro-rata finding alone produced a $2,340.15 apparent overcharge.

What happened

The USPS lease at Mt Vernon Plaza fixed the tenant share at 4.24%, based on 11,392 square feet out of 268,729 square feet total. The 2020 reconciliation used 4.50% instead. That small percentage-point difference translated into a real annual overcharge on a roughly $900,056 CAM pool and eventually became part of a federal litigation record.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 4: Pro-Rata Share Error

high confidence

$2,340

Statement applies 4.5000% pro-rata share but lease specifies 4.2400%, resulting in an estimated overcharge of $2,340.15. Statement uses GLA denominator. Lease specifies a fixed share with no adjustment language.

Lease evidence

Tenant's proportionate share is 4.24%

5.1

Math proof

lease_share=0.0424, stmt_share=0.045, difference=0.0026, total_opex=900056.00, overcharge=2340.15, denominator_type=GLA

Lease evidence

Tenant proportionate share fixed at 4.24%.
The lease ties that share to 11,392 square feet over 268,729 square feet total.
No lease language authorizes the landlord to substitute a higher share later.
The dispute turned on denominator math, not a disputed service category.

Why this matters for your firm

Pro-rata share errors look tiny on paper. They are not. A quarter-point change applied across a full CAM pool can cost tenants thousands each year, and the mistake often survives because reviewers focus on the expense line items instead of the percentage doing the multiplying.

Correction package excerpt

Request for Review - CAM Reconciliation Statement, 2020, USPS Alexandria Community Branch at Mt Vernon Plaza. The review flagged a confirmed pro-rata share variance worth about $2,340.15.

Detection guide

Pro-rata share calculation guide

Lease language

What pro-rata share means in a lease

Industry guide

Retail CAM overcharges 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 United States Postal Service or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.