Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Contracts Administration

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Topic 842, Leases, in February 2016 effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. The change was “to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements.” For the past 40 years or so, operating leases were only required to be presented in the disclosure and were off-balance sheet transactions. Other than the new asset (Right to Use asset) and a related liability on the balance sheet, the impact on the income statement (a single line item for lease expense) and cash flow are unchanged, at least under GAAP. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) now requires all leases be treated similar to capital leases (Topic 842 calls these finance leases). So, under IFRS there will be more unallowable interest to properly account for on Government proposals and contracts incorporating FAR Part 31.

If your business pipeline is growing and you are issuing more subcontracts of higher values, Contractors should be aware that your organization has a duty under 48 CFR §22.805 to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

As we wrap up another hectic year of working with contractors to prepare, review and submit their Incurred Cost Proposals, it had us questioning…“Why do so many contractors wait until the last minute of their deadline to submit? Is there an advantage to submitting at the last minute or is submitting at the last minute actually a disadvantage?”

On August 17, 2020; Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing and Contracting issued two memos providing guidance in support of DFARS Class Deviation 2020-O0013 and 2020-O0021 – CARES Act Section 3610 Implementation. There is also a memo providing contracting officers with a template for a Memorandum for Record to document the file for the issuance of the Section 3610 related contract modification.

We Lifted the Vail

A few months back we submitted a request to DCAA under Freedom of Information Act. Based on the DPC guidance referencing both DCAA and DCMA as playing a key role in support of the rest of the DoD Acquisition Community, we expected DCAA would have a significant number of documents disclosing this key role. Turns out, not so much. All we got was a single document listing 13 frequently asked questions (FAQs) DCAA has been fielding from their auditors, dated July 31, 2020.

FAR Subpart 2.1, Definitions, provides the meaning of two general groupings of cost not assignable directly to final cost objectives (i.e., not a direct contract cost):

Is your company in a situation, performing as a prime contractor on government contracts, but needing to sell the business? Or is there a material change in your business causing a transfer of assets to another business? In the commercial world of contracts and business operations, the assignment of contracts primarily operates under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) and assignments occur frequently due to the ever-changing business landscape. However, this process does not exist in government contracting and novation may be the route for your organization. Assignment and novation of contracts have different consequences for the parties involved; however, for purposes of this article, we will specifically address novation within the context of contracting with the U.S. Government.

The FAR establishes that when contracting by negotiation with the Government, the contractor should have an acceptable estimating system.  FAR 15.407-5 provides that due to the benefits to both the Government and the contractor in reducing the scope of individual proposal reviews at contractors with an acceptable estimating system, the auditor (likely DCAA) should survey the system and provide a report to all contracting offices and contract administration offices doing substantial pricing activity with the contractor.  This is a very open-ended requirement/expectation; therefore, DoD established a structure in the DFARS.

The language in the 2017 NDAA Sec 831, stating “Performance-based payments shall not be conditioned upon costs incurred in contract performance but on the achievement of performance outcomes …” has finally been incorporated into the DFARS (DFARS Case 2019-D002) with an effective date of April 8, 2020.  The rule removes restrictions in DFARS 232.1001(a), DFARS 252.232-7012(b)(i), and DFARS 252.232-7013(b)(i) that limited performance-based payments to amounts not greater than costs incurred up to the time of payment.  However, the rule does not alter the requirement for subcontractors/vendors to report costs incurred when requesting performance-based payments.  The rule also removed the requirement of the subcontractor/vendor’s accounting system to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as evidenced by audited financial statements.

In days gone by, knowing which contract administration office you needed to work with was as easy as finding your local Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office.  DCMA used to accept and administrate pretty much all contracts, even other Federal Agencies with reimbursement of its services (e.g., NASA contracts).  This is no longer the case; Over the last few years, DCMA has made a significant effort to stay focused on what it refers to as its core business – basically research, development, engineering, test, production, and spares for major acquisition programs.  This leaves the administration of low value/low risk contracts, management and professional services contracts, architect-engineer services contracts, and many others to the buying command that issued them.