Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Compliant Accounting Infrastructure (16)

Having a well-defined travel policy is important to your employees, managers, accounting staff, contract customers, and auditors. A one-size-fits-all policy may be suitable for some companies, while others may benefit from having multiple policies focused on the business base and/or contract requirements. 

Is your purchasing system ready for a DCMA Contractor Purchasing System Review?  Time to dust off those policies and procedures, and make sure your employees are trained on FAR and DFARS requirements.

DCMA has been hard at work reviewing contractor purchasing systems, making several updates in 2016 to the CPSR Guidebook, the most recent being January 18, 2016.  In addition, in October 2016, the Director of DCMA issued a Class Deviation from FAR 44.302(a), increasing the CPSR threshold from $25 million to $50 million.  Questions remain on how this will impact contractors whose contracts include FAR 44.3 and who are on DCMA’s review schedule.  The threshold can be lowered if the ACO determines a contractor’s risk level warrants a review.  We have already seen the lower threshold enforced in the early part of 2017 for a couple of our clients.

For most small businesses - and especially for those in the early stages of their life cycle - Quickbooks is an excellent option and an almost fundamental starting point when considering an accounting software from which to grow your company. It is cost effective, easy to use, and given its popularity and presence in the market, training resources are readily available. But is it a viable option for Government Contractors?

We often hear the following statement and question: “My proposal (the government solicitation) calls for a compliant accounting system (SF 1408) and I’ve never been audited.  What do I do?”.

To the uninformed, there may be little or no distinction between the three adjectives which could apply to a contractor (or potential contractor) accounting system. To those dealing with the terminology in government solicitations, there may appear to be no significant distinction because the words seem to be used interchangeably. For example, an Air Force solicitation may have a prerequisite for an adequate accounting system, in contrast to Navy solicitation which substitutes the words acceptable accounting system. Then a third alternative could be a solicitation which gives competing bidders points for approved systems; i.e. 500 points for having an approved accounting system. In most cases, the solicitation links the accounting system status (adequate, acceptable or approved) to an action (written opinion or written determination) by a federal government agency or, less frequently, an opinion by an independent third party such as a CPA or consultant. There is a fourth alternative, an accounting system which has never been reviewed by any independent party (government or otherwise). In this case, a contractor (or a potential contractor) may have an accounting system awaiting its first test, so to speak.

It’s a busy time of year for us and many of our clients, but I wanted to take this opportunity to remind all of our readers of a few upcoming things to keep in mind. For most of our clients, January was a whirlwind of closing 2016 and getting all W-2s and 1099s completed. February will be spent ramping up for financial statement audits and the corporate tax deadline, but for government contractors there’s also a few extra things to do this time of year.

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.

One of the most important parts of a proper response to a Government Solicitation is the Basis of Estimate(s) (BOE). The BOE is a tool that is carefully developed by members of a project team through intricate analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in order to calculate the total price for the required effort. The BOE must be developed before the pricing can take place so that the pricing team knows the cost elements, which will require pricing. To put it differently, the BOE is an estimate developed to outline a Company’s expected staffing and solutions for the selected Government solicitation. This proposed estimate is combined with detailed explanations and supporting rationale which bolsters the overall conclusion. The BOE needs to be able to show the level of services (proposed labor), the skill mix required, materials, travel, etc., that will be required to deliver what is requested through the solicitation. In order to provide a realistic estimate, technical experts should be utilized in order to appropriately determine the work effort needed. The details in the BOE need to be sufficient for the technical evaluator (government or prime contractor) to understand the rationale used, the source of the underlying data, the detailed calculations involved, and the basis for any complexity factors.

In a report issued on July 26, 2016, the DOD- IG (Department of Defense Inspector General) concluded that DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and the Department of the Army (Army General Fund or AGF) failed to support $4.44 Trillion in JV (Journal Voucher) Adjustments.