Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Michael Steen (6)

Recently DCAA’s Director, Pat Fitzgerald, announced his retirement effective August 4, 2014.  In addition to announcing his retirement, he very graciously thanked the DCAA community for their collective efforts to “clearly improve our audit quality and workforce morale, as well as the value we are adding to the warfighter and taxpayer”.   In addition, Mr. Fitzgerald assured the DCAA workforce that “we have established a foundation to make additional improvements to ensure that we continue to provide exceptional service”.

Although the DODIG report (DODIG-2014-088) was not released because of FOUO (For Official Use Only) restrictions, the summary statements published by the DOD-IG suggest that the DOD-IG has absolutely no interest in adhering to the long-standing acquisition principles concerning commercial items and commercial item pricing (wherein the price is the price and the contractor’s profit or loss is not a factor).  The DOD-IG reported that a government contractor had significantly over-charged the government for spare parts for certain military helicopters (which presumably have commercial variants); specifically, 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.  To preclude this from recurring, the DOD-IG recommended a DOD acquisition policy “to establish a percentage of commercial sales that is sufficient to determine fair and reasonable prices when items are being acquired on a sole-source contract and market-based prices are used”.  Translated, the DOD-IG wants DPAP (Defense Procurement Acquisition Policy) to provide percentages of commercial sales (presumably versus sales to the Government) to “add clarity” to the FAR 2.101 definition of items or services customarily used by the general public or by non-government entities.

As required by Section 702 of the 2014 Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) signed by President Obama on December 26, 2013, the June 24, 2014 Federal Register includes an interim rule setting the FAR 31.205-6(p) executive compensation statutory cap at $487K (coincidentally a 49% reduction from the most recent statutory cap of $952,308).   The June 2014 rule notes that it also implements a possible “narrowly targeted” exception to this cost limit for scientists, engineers or other specialists upon an agency determination that such exceptions are needed to ensure that the executive agency has continued access to needed skills and capabilities.  The interim rule also includes a comment period which is for 60 days after the Federal Register publication date (June 24 to August 23, 2014).

In responding to contractor criticisms that DCAA has far too many criteria within their “adequacy checklists”, DCAA has now developed and is pilot testing a new adequacy checklist which involve the same criterion, but each criterion is individually weighted to yield a true risk and materiality based adequacy determination.   Additionally, in developing the weighted criterion, DCAA has implicitly acknowledged that contractor proposals do not have to be 100 percent adequate to be auditable.

On March 25, 2014, President Obama issued executive orders raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hour for contractor employees on government contracts.  The logic, the hardworking cooks serving hamburgers to our troops should not be living in poverty (most likely a reference to the fast food chains which are located on military installations).  Simultaneously, he also directed the Department of Labor to change the federal rules to make more “salary exempt” employees eligible for overtime pay.   The current threshold of $455/week will likely be increased to a significantly higher amount noting that the last change (April 2004) increased the amount from $155/week to $455/week.  The higher amount could be as much as $950/week in which case someone earning $949/week would be eligible for overtime pay (including overtime premium) for hours exceeding 40 hours per week.   In one press release, the Department of Labor used one example of the severe inequity of the existing threshold $455/week), noting that two “hardworking” gas station managers in New Jersey were effectively making less than minimum wage.

Coming as no surprise, President Obama signed the Bi-Partisan (2014) Budget Act on December 26, 2013 including an executive compensation cap of $487K (coincidentally one-half of the most recent statutory cap of $952,308 and significantly lower than an alternate bill with a cap of $625K).  This maybe Obama’s “crowning achievement” over his two terms proving that if someone (The President) whines enough and ignores all of the regulatory history and the fundamental principle that commercial prices constitute a reasonable cost, he will achieve his goal of forcing large government contractors to absorb more and more of their executive’s compensation.  It should be noted that the prior cap and the methodology was based upon compensation of publicly traded corporations with $50 million or more in revenues; hence, that cap was artificially low considering that a number of large government contractors have revenues in the billions and that executive compensation is correlated to company size/revenues.

OK for Government Employees, but not Contractor Employees

As a by-product of government shutdowns, we’ve now seen two occasions where government employees were paid for non-productive time while in furlough status (in fact, the furloughed employees were explicitly prohibited from working notwithstanding the fact that in both 1995 and now in 2013, employees were “made whole” once the government was funded.  Although it was through no fault of the government employees who have been compensated for non-productive time, the fact remains that the taxpayer is footing the bill for idle, non-productive time on the part of thousands of government employees.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare) continues to be an embarrassment to the current administration and those in the Legislative Branch who voted to pass the Act (but apparently failed to read it before voting).   In addition to the dysfunctional website, we now know that other means to “sign-up” were not exactly good alternatives because the other means (i.e. telephone or written application) ultimately depended upon HealthCare.gov, but if you talked to someone and they took your information, at least it felt like you were signing-up.   Perhaps that’s what is meant by the over used term transparency.

In a recent DCAA audit policy, DCAA makes note of the 2013 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which requires DCAA to track requests and contractor responses for internal audits and to ensure that DCAA does not use contractor internal audit reports for any purpose other than evaluating and testing the efficacy of contractor internal controls and the reliability of associated contractor business systems.  The reason the NDAA mentions this “limited use” is to diffuse contractor concerns and allegations that DCAA will misuse access to internal audits for so called fishing expeditions.