Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Compliant Accounting Infrastructure (17)

As we (Redstone Government Consulting, Inc.) began to plan our September 21, 2017 Redstone Edge, we sought out speakers and potential attendees from government agencies, including those from DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) and DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency). In both cases, their potential speakers had a list of questions which seemed to be unnecessary, but related to OGE (Office of Government Ethics) regulations and interpretations, to identify and otherwise prohibit anything which might be an illegal (or at least unethical) gratuity. Although we might not be a “government contractor”, for those who are, there is another regulation in play; FAR 52.203-3 prohibits government contractors from offering gratuities to government employees.

Companies that incur significant costs for training and education of their workforce should have formal policies and procedures in place to ensure reimbursement on their government contracts and subcontracts.  As with all types of costs, there are three major components to consider: allowability, allocability and reasonableness.

Wage Determination Fact Finding

In ASBCA Case No. 61040, 61101, Sonoran Technology appeals their claim for an equitable adjustment due to an increase in the Service Contract Act Wage Determination after contract award.  The solicitation that controlled this contract award included a SCA wage determination and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The bidders were required to use the current SCA wage determination (at the time of the bid) in the formulation of their proposals submitted to the Government.  For future increases in SCA wages and/or benefits, the FAR and the contract have provisions/clauses which cover a contract price change for a wage determination for a multi-year contract.  The issue here whether a new wage determination, incorporated into the contract, prompted a responsibility for the government to adjust the contract price to compensate Sonoran for a corollary increase in its state gross receipts taxes.

The objectives of a timekeeping system are to ensure that labor costs are accurately and timely identified as either direct or indirect in the accounting system.  For certain contract types (e.g. cost-type), these accumulated labor costs are reported and billed to the customer.  It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the labor costs posted in the timekeeping system are proper and reliable. 

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.