Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Compliant Accounting Infrastructure (17)

Provisional billing rates are established by either the ACO (Administrative Contracting Officer) or DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency).   As described in a 2014 DCAA Audit Policy (MRD 14-PPS-012, dated July 22, 2014), per FAR 42.704, provisional billing rates should be established early within a contractor fiscal year for purposes of invoicing indirect costs (on cost-type contracts or any contract which ultimately requires final indirect cost rates per FAR 42.705).   For anyone familiar with FAR, it is self-evident that provisional billing rates are based upon FAR Part 42, which details contract administration versus proposal contract pricing, (typically FAR Part 15, if cost or pricing data is required).   Although there may be similarities, the proposal process involves solicitation clauses, whereas a contract award contains contractual clauses.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA) has changed the game for executive compensation limitations yet again. Before 2012, US Government contracts subject to the FAR Part 31 Cost Principles were subject to the applicable fiscal year (FY) Compensation Cap established by the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) on the five most highly compensated employees in management positions. This changed again for contracts awarded from January 1, 2012 through June 23, 2014 to apply to all contractor employees performing DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard contracts, but apply only to the top five executives for remaining agencies. Every year the Office of Management and Budget publishes a memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies announcing the “benchmark compensation amount” for certain executives and contractor employees. During contractor’s fiscal years 2013 and 2014 the executive compensation dollar limitation was $980,796 and $1,144,888, respectively. Now, the BBA limits how much a contractor could charge the federal government for an employee’s compensation to $487,000 to all contractor employees for new contracts subject to FAR 31.2 awarded on or after June 24, 2014. This provision limitation change within a fiscal year has caused a contractor to be subject to multiple employee compensation caps (FAR 31.205-6(p)) within the same fiscal year.

Over the course of 2015, one of our accounting services consultants, Katie Donnell, made four week long trips to Unanet Headquarters in Dulles, VA for training classes to implement and operate Unanet software.

Updated October 26, 2016

In our blog “Blended Compensation Rate Guidance: Steps to Success”, posted on March 4, 2016, we provided the steps a contractor should take to determine if and how the compensation cap applies.  The reference is FAR 31.205-6(p) which establishes a statutory cap on allowable compensation, notably the methodology for determining the cap was changed as was the cap (reduced to $487,000) effective on contracts executed on or after June 24, 2014.  The reference to blended rates pertains to a contractor incurring costs in 2014 on contracts executed before June 24, 2014, as well as on contracts executed on or after June 24, 2014.   The “old” contracts subject to the previous (more contractor-friendly) regulation with a 2014 cap of $1,144,888 and the “new” contracts subject to the artificially low (and highly political) cap of $487,000.

DCMA and DCAA have issued guidance on how to deal with the impact of the $487,000 rate cap that applies to contracts subject to FAR 31.2 and awarded on or after June 24, 2014. If you have not read this document, see DCAA’s MRD 16-PSP-005(R), dated February 19, 2016. It includes the DCMA guidance also. You have flexibly priced contracts that require an annual incurred cost submission. Now what, exactly, are you supposed to do with this guidance?

From the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the creation of the National Equal Pay Task Force and throughout Obama’s administration, we have seen a consistent push for “fair pay” (viewed from the perspective of the Federal Government). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Jenny Yang explained that “Since the creation of the President’s Equal Pay Task Force in 2010, the EEOC has investigated tens of thousands of charges of pay discrimination, and through our enforcement efforts, we have obtained more than $85 million in monetary relief for those who have faced pay discrimination based on sex.” Of passing interest, the amount is only shown in absolute terms/dollars because in relative terms the recovery (using annualized data) is approximately .000025% of total full-time employee compensation in the United States (annual monetary relief of $17,000,000 and total annual full-time employee compensation is approximately $6,842,500,000,000). Regardless of the statistical insignificance, in relative terms, it is clear that they mean business and that they’ve only just begun--not to be confused with the 1970’s Carpenter’s Song; “We’ve Only Just Begun”.

As a small (or potential) government contractor or subcontractor, one question you will frequently encounter is if you have a “Job Cost Accounting System.” This may sound like a specific type of software, but it is not. Many different accounting software systems can provide job cost accounting if properly configured. The questions on the SF 1408, Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System, are designed to discover if you have a job cost accounting system. This still doesn’t tell the non-accounting person what a job cost accounting system is or why it is important (other than to get the right answers on the SF 1408 to qualify for a government cost-reimbursable contract).

Outsourcing certain administration functions within an organization has become a trending practice among government contractors. In fact, we have seen a noticeable uptick in outsourced accounting, human resources and contracts administration functions over the past year.

Whether a company chooses to outsource a certain administrative function to fill a temporary void or a permanent one, looking to subcontractors for help makes sense for a number of reasons.

For government contractors your indirect rate structure is critical to your competitiveness, perhaps more so than any other element of the proposal.  In today’s LPTA environment, most offerors are going to be very similar when it comes to technical capabilities and past performance, so almost always award decisions come down to cost.  For the select few companies that have a technical edge or a differentiator in the way of performance that outweighs the cost to your government customer you can stop reading now.  The vast majority of companies working with the federal government don’t have this luxury, so what are they doing to set themselves apart when it comes to developing their indirect rates and overall wrap rates (wrap rates are a function of total direct and indirect costs for a labor hour divided by the direct labor hourly rate); hence, a lower wrap rate is perceived to be a more competitive overall cost structure)?