On August 13, 2013, the Federal Register included a proposed rule to reduce the contractor response time (for comments on past performance ratings) from 30 to 14 days. The change is a required reform (i.e. Congressional expectation) to improve contractor past performance databases; per the rule writers, it will “improve communication with contractors, access to performance information within the government and procedures selecting high performing contractors” and “having this data available within 14 days will be to the advantage of most contractors”. Not that it matters, but this strikes us as a meaningless and inconsequential change (to placate Congress) which will do nothing to improve the timeliness of the acquisition process. Moreover, just one more example where contractual due dates are imposed on contractors (who are then held to these due dates) when few if any due dates are contractually imposed on government auditors or contracting officers. Notably when FAR 52.216-7 was revised in May 2011, public comments suggested that with respect to the annual indirect cost rate proposal (contractor due date for submission is six months after the end of the contractor fiscal year) it also include due dates for incurred cost audits to facilitate contract closeout—in their infinite (and biased) wisdom, the rule makers stated that government due dates would be inappropriate because such due dates might impact the quality of the contract audits. Which begs the question, how does one measure audit quality when DCAA completes so few incurred cost audits?
