Loss of Memory or In-Denial?
As most contractors (subject to DCAA incurred cost audits) are aware, DCAA and DCMA were soundly “defeated” in terms of ASBCA rejections of DCAA FAR 31.205-6(b) compensation reasonableness challenges (Reference to J.F. Taylor, ASBCA Cases 56105, 56322 and Metron, ASBCA Cases 56624, 56751, 56752).
In spite of these losses (which would have been embarrassing to anyone other than DCAA), contractors are on the receiving end of DCAA compensation audits which are exactly the same process as was rebuked in the ASBCA cases. Knowing that contractors would make reference to these cases, DCAA HQ (most likely with legal assistance) has prepared standard audit rejoinders to be used when contractor defend executive compensation by making note of J.F. Taylor and/or Metron.
Oddly enough, DCAA’s “standard audit rejoinder” only refers to the J.F Taylor decision, inclusive of a reference to the government’s discredited expert witness (whose PhD may not have been legitimate); thus the ASBCA was left with the contractor’s un-rebutted expert witness.
In an apparent attempt to re-write history or forget what actually transpired, DCAA’s “standard audit rejoinder” fails to mention that the ASBCA declined to rehear J.F.Taylor (denied the government request) and also wholly fails to mention the Metron case which essentially reaffirmed the substantive findings in J.F. Taylor; in particular that DCAA’s statistical analysis was nothing but a façade for a valid application of statistics; hence, statistically flawed.
Nonetheless, DCAA’s field auditors are left with no choice but to continue to apply DCAA’s highly prescriptive and statistically flawed compensation benchmarking to contractor incurred costs. Apparently no one in DOD (DPAP in particular) have the wherewithal to direct DCAA to cease and desist. Equally apparent, DCMA will be forced with tough decisions in terms of how many more scarce resources to use to support contract disputes originating with DCAA’s statistically flawed analysis.