John is a Director with Redstone Government Consulting, Inc. providing government contract consulting services to our clients primarily related to the DFARS business systems, CAS Disclosure Statements, and DCAA/DCMA compliance preparation, advisory, and defense. Prior to joining Redstone Government Consulting, John served in a number of capacities with DCAA/DCMA for more than 30 years. Upon his retirement, he was based in Texas as an SES-level Corporate Audit Director for DCAA, managing a staff of 300 auditors at one of the largest DOD programs. Professional Experience John began his career in the late 80s working in the Clearwater, FL audit office and over the next three decades he progressed through a number of positions within both DCAA and DCMA with career highlights as DCAA Program Manager at Ft. Belvoir, Chief of Technical Programs Division, Deputy Assistant Director-Policy, Director of the DCMA Cost and Pricing Center, the SES-level Lockheed Martin Corporate Audit Director, and Director of Integrity and Quality Assurance. John’s three decades of experience in performing and leading DCAA auditors and DCMA reviewers provides a wealth of expertise to our clients. John’s role, not only in the performance of audits, but also in the development of audit policy affords him unique insights into the defense of audit findings and the linkage of audit program steps to the underlying regulatory framework. He is an expert in FAR, DFARS, and other agency acquisition regulation, as well as a subject matter expert in the Cost Accounting Standards having reviewed and provided audit feedback on many of the largest and most complex cost accounting practices during his tenure with the DCAA. John’s tenure with DCAA and DCMA came at a critical time during each agency’s history where a number of changes were occurring such as the response to the ICS backlog, development of audit approaches to the DFARS Business Systems and implementation of new audit initiatives as a result of Congressional oversight through the NDAA process. John’s leadership at the DCMA Cost & Pricing center saw oversight of all major DOD pricing actions, leadership of should cost review teams, the Commercial Pricing group and many other areas of strategic value to our clients. His involvement in these and other Agency initiatives is of great value to our clients due to his in depth understanding of DCAA and DCMA’s internal policy directives. Education John holds a Master of Business Administration and a B.A. in Accounting from the University of South Florida. Certifications Certified Information Systems Auditor State of Alabama Certified Public Accountant
At the end of each of the DCAA audit programs for contractor business systems, DCAA discusses what it refers to as “Less Severe Significant Deficiencies.” These are clearly deficiencies which do not meet the DFARS definition of a “Significant deficiency.”[1] As a result, the withhold requirement provided for in DFARS 252.242-7005 cannot be applied.
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR), Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
DCAA issued some guidance on PPP forgiveness treatment in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to its auditors. The FAQs were not front and center on DCAA’s website but search on “PPP” did find them at: COVID FAQ for PWS 07142021 (dcaa.mil).
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), Small Business Compliance, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DCAA Audit Support, Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Government Regulations, COVID-19, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loans, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
What is the spookiest and scariest story for a government contractor? How about a story where the government imposes an expense on a contractor, but doesn’t allow for consideration of this expense in the contract value? So, in layman’s terms, losing money (profit) on government contracts. In a recent ASBCA decision, this is exactly what happened.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
On June 24, 2021, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) opinioned that Intellicheck, Inc., a subcontractor, did not have privity of contract or even an implied-in-fact contract with the Government to allow for the recovery of costs incurred by Intellicheck, Inc. to maintain and store Government property after the completion of a Task Order for the Navy. A tale as old as time, the Government lets years go by before taking action to dispose of its property being held by a subcontractor. Then finds a legal out for not paying the costs the Government caused to be incurred.
Topics: DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations, Government Property Management
In 2017 Congress directed through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that changes be made to the treatment of independent research and development (IR&D) costs and required the Defense Contract Audit Agency to provide as part of its annual report to Congress both independent research and development and bid and proposal (B&P) costs expended by DoD contractors. Congress intended this change to apply to indirect costs incurred on or after October 1, 2017. The Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR) Council must have read over that part.
Topics: Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations
In 2020 Congress directed through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that contracting officers be prohibited from determining that the price of a contract or subcontract is fair and reasonable based solely on historical prices paid by the Government. Congress goes on to provide that if the contractor fails to provide data supporting the proposed price, the contractor is ineligible for award, unless the head of the contracting activity (HCA) determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award. Let’s face it they are saying contracting officer should be asking for “cost data.”
Topics: Government Shutdown, DFARS Business Systems, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR), Government Regulations
ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, had an impact on the way many contractors recognized revenue related to contracts with the Federal Government. Redstone has covered this topic a couple of times (January 26, 2021 Government Contractor Challenges in 2021 Webinar and May 6, 2021 MossAdam/Redstone Webinar Compliance Changes for Government Contractors). ASC 606 also impacts the recognition of sales commissions. The overarching GAAP matching principle requires that the expense of sales be matched to the recognition of the related revenue.
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), DCAA Audit Support, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
This short video and article provide insights into FAR Part 31 – the Cost Principles. We explain what FAR Part 31 cost principles are, when they apply, and why they are important. We also discuss what contracts are subject to the cost principles, how they cannot apply to only some of your contracts and not others, and the impact on your accounting system to accommodate the cost principles.
Topics: Vlog, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
Northrop attempted to open up a dialog with Government as to the allowability of litigation settlement costs it planned to include in its 2019-2023 Sector Home Office Allocation Submission. Of course, Northrop believed the cost was allowable, and the Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) believed the costs to be unallowable.
Topics: Non-US Government Contractor, Litigation Consulting Support, Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), DCAA Audit Support, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
While the decision in the case (ASBCA, 21-1 BCA ¶37,823 Hollymatic Corporation, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, (Mar. 22, 2021)) did not specifically rest on this finding; the board stated:
“Our reading of the solicitation is also supported by the fact this was a commercial acquisition pursuant to FAR Part 12 and the definition of a commercial item (product) in FAR 2.101, paragraph 1, requires the item to have been “sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public” (i.e., to presently exist in the market) (finding 2)”
A selective review and reference to this case by DCAA or DCMA could lead to the impression that for a product (i.e., item) to meet the FAR 2.101 definition of a commercial item the product must be completely developed and currently offered for sale in the commercial marketplace.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR), Commercial Item Determination