Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) (5)

What is a CPSR Review?

A CPSR Review is a Contractor Purchasing System Review. This review is performed by the Government on a contractor, in order to:

• assess the overall health of the purchasing organization,
• evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the contractor’s practices in expending Government funds,
• perform an independent review of the contractor’s system to optimize its effectiveness in compliance with Government policy, and
• identify risk to provide the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) a basis for approving or disapproving the purchasing system.

Does the Total of All Proposed Subcontract Costs Exceed 70% of the Total Contract Costs?

Is your company submitting a proposal to the government/prime contractor that includes a total of all subcontract costs exceeding 70 percent of the total costs proposed? If so, you must identify “added value” in your proposal so the government/auditor does not classify the indirect cost applied to the total subcontract cost as “excessive pass-through charges.”  The government considers indirect costs and profit/fee that a contractor applies to subcontract costs that exceed 70 percent of the contract to be “pass through costs.” This applies to lower tier subcontract costs also. If there is no negligible value added by the contractor, the government or auditor will question the indirect costs and profit/fee applied to the subcontract costs as unallowable excessive pass through under FAR 31.203(i).

Due to the recent Russian invasion in Ukraine, there has been a significant increase in cyber-attacks reported across the world. While the U.S. Government has concerns related to attacks on U.S. companies including banks, power companies, fuel suppliers, they are also concerned with defense contractors. President Biden has issued multiple warnings to companies including defense contractors about looming cyber-attacks.

Government Contractor Purchases below the Micro-Purchase Threshold Require NO Documentation

This is a common misconception within the GOVCON community. While the expectations are clearly less documentation and effort are required than that of a larger dollar value purchase, there is not a magic threshold at which NO documentation of the fair and reasonable price is allowed.

At the end of each of the DCAA audit programs for contractor business systems, DCAA discusses what it refers to as “Less Severe Significant Deficiencies.” These are clearly deficiencies which do not meet the DFARS definition of a “Significant deficiency.”[1] As a result, the withhold requirement provided for in DFARS 252.242-7005 cannot be applied.

DCMA updated the Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) Handbook on September 10, 2021.

DoD Inspector General Audit on Whistleblower

We issued a blog in May 2021 addressing the Department of Justice, Inspector General. The IG found that DOJ contracts did not comply with the whistleblower requirements to include whistleblower clauses in the contract, disseminate the rights and protections in writing to employees, and include required information in confidentiality agreements/statements to employees. We indicated we would not be surprised to see the DoD IG pick up on this area and review DoD Contractors.

In 2020 Congress directed through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that contracting officers be prohibited from determining that the price of a contract or subcontract is fair and reasonable based solely on historical prices paid by the Government. Congress goes on to provide that if the contractor fails to provide data supporting the proposed price, the contractor is ineligible for award, unless the head of the contracting activity (HCA) determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award. Let’s face it they are saying contracting officer should be asking for “cost data.”

The Finding of Concern –

While the decision in the case (ASBCA, 21-1 BCA ¶37,823 Hollymatic Corporation, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, (Mar. 22, 2021)) did not specifically rest on this finding; the board stated:

“Our reading of the solicitation is also supported by the fact this was a commercial acquisition pursuant to FAR Part 12 and the definition of a commercial item (product) in FAR 2.101, paragraph 1, requires the item to have been “sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public” (i.e., to presently exist in the market) (finding 2)”

A selective review and reference to this case by DCAA or DCMA could lead to the impression that for a product (i.e., item) to meet the FAR 2.101 definition of a commercial item the product must be completely developed and currently offered for sale in the commercial marketplace.

A commercial item determination should define the item or service, document market research, identify the FAR 2.101 Commercial Item definition, and include a “determination” that the item is commercial. Sounds easy right!