Redstone Government Consulting Blog (63)

In the recently published ASBCA Nos 59508 and 59509, the ASBCA agreed with the contractor and dismissed the government claim (final decision) which had disallowed $116,789,631 (subcontractor costs as components of direct costs claimed by the prime contractor).   The premise for the (failed) final decision was DCAA’s assertion that the prime contractor had breached its contractual duty to “manage” the prime contractor’s subcontracts and subcontractors.   The reference is FAR 42.202(e)(2) which states that the prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontracts. In context, that clause makes it clear that the government (Contracting Officer) is only responsible for administering the prime contract. In contrast, and only by implication and a legal theory created by a DCAA auditor, the prime contractor assumes certain FAR Part 42 responsibilities for subcontracts.

Understanding the requirements and/or selection criteria before preparing a fully responsive bid to a government solicitation cannot be understated. In a recent decision (B-413559.2; B-413559.8) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two separate government contractors’ protests questioned the government’s evaluation scheme. Specifically, the protesters argued that certain terms contained in the request for proposal (RFP) were unduly restrictive. The protestors were ultimately challenging their respective elimination from competition based on the fact that they did not score high enough to be included in the top 60 technically rated offerors.

Adhering to the requirements of a government solicitation is paramount when submitting a proposal. In a recent decision (B-413104.5; B-413104.6) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two separate government contractors’ protests were denied for failure to meet the explicit requirements of a solicitation for the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH). The protestors were ultimately challenging their respective elimination from competition based on the fact that the non-responsibility determination should have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under SBA’s certificate of competency (COC) procedures.

In 1897, a famous newspaper editorial contained a response to an 8-year old girl who raised the question of the validity of Santa Clause (Is there a Santa Clause).   The response and the editorial is considered the most famous newspaper editorial ever published, not only protecting the eight year old, but causing adults to re-think their own beliefs.   In the spirit of accepting that there just might be a Santa Clause, we’ve identified some of the most mythological statements extracted from the Federal Register (regulatory reporting burden) or the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the annual benefits and costs of Federal Rules and paperwork. No one reconciles the OMB summary with the individual estimates in the Federal Register, which is probably a good thing because believing in government assertions of regulatory benefits or regulatory burdens is analogous to believing in Santa Clause. As illustrated herein, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause and he lives in the minds of those providing estimates for regulatory burdens and/or benefits”.

The question of when and how DCAA will again perform audits for non-DoD agencies remains open, irrespective of that agency’s proposed reauthorization by the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). When, because among other things we have not yet seen final passage of the FY 2017 NDAA. And how, because we wonder if non-DoD agencies will allow DCAA to follow their own internal guidance for selection of annual incurred cost submissions for audit (or more controversial, those deemed low-risk and not audited). Of course, selection of submissions to be audited is not entirely at DCAA’s discretion since non-DoD audits are requested and funded by the non-DOD agency. However, once requested, DCAA may or may not reject requests based upon factors to include risk and dollar thresholds. From a budgetary and funding standpoint, since all non-DoD audits are subject to reimbursable funding to DCAA, it doesn’t make sense to reject any non-DOD requests for audit(s). But, for discussion purposes, let’s assume DCAA honors all requests without any limitations.

On September 30, 2016, DCAA issued the following MRD (Memorandum for Regional Directors): Update – Audit Guidance on the Impact of the National Defense Authorization Act on DCAA’s Audit Support to Non-Defense Agencies.   For the record, there isn’t anything captioned “the” National Defense Authorization Act; in this case, it happened to be referring to the 2016 Act, which was presumably “the” Act (to DCAA) because it included Section 893, which prohibits DCAA from providing audit support to non-defense agencies.  

Service Contract Labor Standards and Davis-Bacon Act

Government contractors are subject to many rules and regulations, and many contractors don’t always pay attention to the labor standards requirements incorporated into their contracts. Employers often worry about ensuring employees are properly being paid overtime and classified as exempt or non-exempt, but is your company really paying the appropriate pay rate and benefits that may be part of your contracts? Odds are if your company is performing services under a federally funded government contract, the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS), Davis Bacon Act (DBA), and/or Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) are likely part of your contracts.

As we again approach Halloween and the night of tricks or treats, we’ve once again done some exhaustive research (more accurately searching blogs and other reliable sources) as to the trending costumes (favored by DCAA, DCMA or the Current Administration).

The incurred cost proposal is required for cost type and time and material contracts subject to the FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payment.” Cost type and time and material contracts have a cost reimbursable element that needs to be trued up (i.e. final indirect rates), hence the reason for the incurred cost proposal. There are many subsections, which are listed within the clause (52.216-7(d), thus defining the required schedules for an adequate indirect cost rate proposal.

On September 22, 2016, approximately 150 professionals attended the first annual “Redstone Edge” conference.  The all-day event, held at the Jackson Center in Huntsville, Alabama, is planned to be an annual event, potentially expanding to two days in September 2017 (starting on September 21, 2017).  

The 2016 conference covered a broad range of topics with an impressive variety of presenters representing government agencies, government contractors, and related advisors, including attorneys and consultants/CPAs.