Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Contracts & Subcontracts Administration (13)

As we wrap up another hectic year of working with contractors to prepare, review and submit their Incurred Cost Proposals, it had us questioning…“Why do so many contractors wait until the last minute of their deadline to submit? Is there an advantage to submitting at the last minute or is submitting at the last minute actually a disadvantage?”

On August 17, 2020; Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing and Contracting issued two memos providing guidance in support of DFARS Class Deviation 2020-O0013 and 2020-O0021 – CARES Act Section 3610 Implementation. There is also a memo providing contracting officers with a template for a Memorandum for Record to document the file for the issuance of the Section 3610 related contract modification.

We Lifted the Vail

A few months back we submitted a request to DCAA under Freedom of Information Act. Based on the DPC guidance referencing both DCAA and DCMA as playing a key role in support of the rest of the DoD Acquisition Community, we expected DCAA would have a significant number of documents disclosing this key role. Turns out, not so much. All we got was a single document listing 13 frequently asked questions (FAQs) DCAA has been fielding from their auditors, dated July 31, 2020.

FAR Subpart 2.1, Definitions, provides the meaning of two general groupings of cost not assignable directly to final cost objectives (i.e., not a direct contract cost):

Is your company in a situation, performing as a prime contractor on government contracts, but needing to sell the business? Or is there a material change in your business causing a transfer of assets to another business? In the commercial world of contracts and business operations, the assignment of contracts primarily operates under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) and assignments occur frequently due to the ever-changing business landscape. However, this process does not exist in government contracting and novation may be the route for your organization. Assignment and novation of contracts have different consequences for the parties involved; however, for purposes of this article, we will specifically address novation within the context of contracting with the U.S. Government.

The FAR establishes that when contracting by negotiation with the Government, the contractor should have an acceptable estimating system.  FAR 15.407-5 provides that due to the benefits to both the Government and the contractor in reducing the scope of individual proposal reviews at contractors with an acceptable estimating system, the auditor (likely DCAA) should survey the system and provide a report to all contracting offices and contract administration offices doing substantial pricing activity with the contractor.  This is a very open-ended requirement/expectation; therefore, DoD established a structure in the DFARS.

The language in the 2017 NDAA Sec 831, stating “Performance-based payments shall not be conditioned upon costs incurred in contract performance but on the achievement of performance outcomes …” has finally been incorporated into the DFARS (DFARS Case 2019-D002) with an effective date of April 8, 2020.  The rule removes restrictions in DFARS 232.1001(a), DFARS 252.232-7012(b)(i), and DFARS 252.232-7013(b)(i) that limited performance-based payments to amounts not greater than costs incurred up to the time of payment.  However, the rule does not alter the requirement for subcontractors/vendors to report costs incurred when requesting performance-based payments.  The rule also removed the requirement of the subcontractor/vendor’s accounting system to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as evidenced by audited financial statements.

In days gone by, knowing which contract administration office you needed to work with was as easy as finding your local Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office.  DCMA used to accept and administrate pretty much all contracts, even other Federal Agencies with reimbursement of its services (e.g., NASA contracts).  This is no longer the case; Over the last few years, DCMA has made a significant effort to stay focused on what it refers to as its core business – basically research, development, engineering, test, production, and spares for major acquisition programs.  This leaves the administration of low value/low risk contracts, management and professional services contracts, architect-engineer services contracts, and many others to the buying command that issued them.

The President has announced he has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act (DPA).  This act provides the Government with the ability to direct businesses to accept contracts and increase the production of necessary goods and services.  The act has been used numerous times since 1950 to support emergencies, including natural disasters and the war on terrorism.  The current fight with COVID-19 has necessitated it once again.  A July 28, 2014, Congressional Research Service paper titled “The Defense Production Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Reauthorization” summarized the current act to include:

Back in the days of DCAA ICAPS audits, the billing system was a standalone audit program.  Even DCAA’s first pass at auditing for compliance with DFARS 252.242-7006 provided a standalone sub-assignment for the coverage of contractor billing systems.