Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:

REDSTONE Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The New Contractor Purchasing System Reviews (CPSR)

  
  
  

DCAA Audit Support Redstone GCIDCMA reviewers and consultants alike used a years’ old guidance instruction for performing CPSRs (Contractor Purchasing System Reviews) in ascertaining if a contractor’s purchasing practices represent methods for achieving “best value” in purchasing of services and supplies.  This guidance, DCMA Instruction “Consent to Subcontract/Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR)” includes an Appendix B that was specifically used in the reconciliation of a contractor’s purchasing or procurement related policies and procedures.  That appendix in essence is a checklist with 55 far ranging questions from purely subcontract management issues to Affirmative Action and Standards of Conduct items, and effectively represents criteria and parameters for acceptable government contractor procurement practices in addition to preferred documented company policies and procedures. 

But to parrot an old cliché, there’s a new Sheriff in town.  The DFARS Business System Rule finalized in February 2012, specifically DFARS 252.244-7001 “Contractor Purchasing System Administration”, sets forth 24 criteria to be used in the determination of an adequate contractor purchasing system.  At the time of the Business System Rule finalization there had not yet been a reconciliation of the DCMA “Appendix B” procurement expectations with the criteria set forth in 252.244-7001.  However, DCMA issued its DCMA-INST 109 on November 28, 2012 which mirrors the purchasing systems attributes found in the DFARS contract clause.   In fact in the “Purpose” section, of the November 2012 instruction, the new instruction supersedes the previous purchasing instruction, and the DCMA-INST 109 is now a stand-alone purchasing system evaluation document.  This writer is of the opinion that all of the former CPSR instruction appendices, including the 55 question checklist in Appendix B, are also cancelled.  The “Purpose" section of the new instruction goes on to say that the new instruction “…provides procedures for performing contractor purchasing system reviews” which are effectively the DFARS purchasing system provisions.

DCMA has not yet issued any new checklists or questions that reviewers should use during CPSR evaluations.  However, the new 24 criteria are in themselves a checklist and replace the basic criteria set forth in the prior DCMA CPSR’s Appendix B document.  Furthermore, the 24 criteria are a much more defined indication of what documentation is required  in purchasing files.  Therefore, we at Redstone have developed our own procurement policies, procedures, and practices checklists that we now use during CPSRs that comply with the most current government requirements. 

 

 

 

About Restone GCI

Redstone Government Consultants are a team of the most senior industry veterans and the brightest new talent in the industry. Many have held senior government positions including leadership roles in the DCAA. Our new talents bring significant accounting and software experience along with fresh perspectives, inspiration and energy to our team. Through our leadership and combined experience, we provide a unique perspective, bringing both government and contractor proficiencies to bear and ensuring rock-solid government compliance for our clients.

Comments

Currently, there are no comments. Be the first to post one!
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Disclaimer
Data published on our website, such as our white papers, blogs and other government contracting commentary reflect our interpretations and opinions of current events and regulations, at the time such data is published, and the perspectives/opinions of other professionals in our industry may vary from our own.  Further, our commentary and perspectives do not reflect legal analyses, since we are not attorneys, but rather government contracts and accounting advisors.  We therefore make no representation that the use of our published information will insulate a company from government challenges, nor otherwise ensure a successful defense on any government procurement adverse action.  Readers agree that articles or blog commentary presented within our website shall not be replicated or re-published without requesting before publication in another medium, and our expressed written consent to do so.