Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Michael Steen (5)

Estimating System Deficiencies

In its recent report (DODIG 2015-139), the DOD-IG (Inspector General) found that DCMA Contracting Officers failed to comply with DFARS timing requirements related to contractor business systems (DFARS 215,407-5-70 and DFARS 252.242-7005. In this case, the IG evaluated actions (or more accurately inactions) on 18 DCAA audit reports related to contractor estimating systems which are subject to the criteria in DFARS 252.215-7002. The DFARS Business Systems rule includes no time frames concerning government audits of contractor systems; however, once a government audit report is (finally) issued, DFARS has the following time-requirements (“requirements” used loosely because due dates applicable to the government are routinely ignored as evidenced in the IG report):

On June 18, 2015, as a retired “civil servant” whose personnel records now reside with OPM, I was notified by OPM that OPM had “recently become aware of a cybersecurity incident that may have exposed my personal information”.

In its report dated March 25, 2015, DCAA issued its fourth Annual Report to Congress including a number of self-accolades for numerous accomplishments in spite of a huge disconnect between DCAA’s audits and its statutorily required audits.  DCAA provides an overview wherein it reports that its “cost-effective” approach examined $182.6 billion, issued 5,688 audit reports, identified $4.5 billion in savings with a 6.9 to 1 return on investment (ROI).   DCAA now represents that its ROI is based upon a “conservative approach” because the savings only include realized savings and not future potential savings if DCAA recommendations are implemented.   However, DCAA fails to mention that future potential savings will be reported when realized; hence, if in any given year DCAA did report future savings as well as realized savings, DCAA would be duplicating reported net savings (coincidentally an issue reported in a 2014 DOD-IG report because two different DCAA audit offices reporting the same net savings for the same audit exceptions).

On April 30, 2015, a US District Court Judge in Delaware granted a United States motion to dismiss an FTCA claim (Federal Torts Claim Act) filed by KBRS (Kellogg Brown and Root Services).   The government’s motion to dismiss was premised upon jurisdictional issues; in particular discretionary functions on the part of a government official are exemptions to the FTCA.   The litigation involved a two count complaint by KBRS; i) damages arising from a negligent DCAA audit and ii) damages caused by the negligent DCAA audit resulting in a Department of Justice investigation under the False Claims Act.   Although the litigation involved a number of other issues (in addition to the allegedly negligent DCAA audit report), none of those issues were debated once the District Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over actions exempt from the FTCA.

A Prospective View of Model Employer (Government Contractor)

On April 15, 2015, members of the self-proclaimed Congressional Progressive Caucus called for an Executive Order (EO) which would define a model employer and provide model employers with preferences in terms of government contract awards.  The Progressive Caucus envisions an EO which would define a model employer to include a minimum wage of $15/hour, other benefits including paid time off, full-time hours and predictable schedules.  As noted by this Caucus, the 2014 EO which raised the minimum wage to $10.10/hour for employees of government contractors was simply not enough to eliminate stagnant wages which tether jobs to poverty and government assistance. 

In honor of today’s date and what it represents, a special blog concerning government actions and reactions.

As a follow-up to a brief article in our February Newsletter which noted the February 4, 2015 disposition of a business systems proposed rule, “closed without further action”, it’s critical for government contractors to recognize that the proposal would have just added to an existing rule; however, what remains is far more substantial than the proposed changes.

Although it may come as a surprise to many, DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) has embraced the concept of New Years’ Resolutions, in this case to restate and to reinforce strategic goals in terms of near term objectives.  It should be recognized that DCAA’s New Year actually began on October 1, 2014; however, DCAA is only now managing to complete its new years’ resolutions which is coincidentally reinforcing the need for resolution #1. 

Here are DCAA’s top five New Years’ Resolutions for 2015:

Although we once again failed to receive an invitation to attend the Federal Government’s Annual Halloween Ball, we have it from a reliable source that the following were the top four costumes for Government Officials and/or Agencies.  In addition, we’ve identified the most likely reasons for the popularity of the top four costumes.

In a July 18, 2014 blog, we noted that a summation from a recent DOD-IG report (DODIG-2014-088) indicated that DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) had potentially overpaid about $9 million on 33 of 35 spare parts which were sole-sourced to the particular government contractor.  At the time, we only had the summary conclusion (the report was non-releasable); however, we recently obtained (through FOIA) a redacted copy of the DOD-IG report and that provides more clarity in terms of the alleged failings of DLA.  Coincidentally, we’ve recently read an article (Defense E-Brief published by NDIA) which emphasized that the Pentagon is putting defense contractors on notice that DOD contracting officers will demand fair prices for commercial items.