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

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.

FAR 31.201-6(a) and CAS 9904.405-30(a) both define directly associated cost as “any cost which is generated solely as a result of incurring another cost, and which would not have been incurred had the other cost not been incurred.”  FAR 31.201-6(a) restates the definition replacing the word “which” with the word “that.”  Still a consistent view of what directly associated cost means.

There is much confusion and frustration on behalf of a contractor when it comes to forward pricing rate proposals (FPRP) and forward pricing rate agreements (FPRA).  This confusion and frustration comes from the lack of direction provided for this process in the FAR.  In this blog, we pull together the regulation and guidance associated with forward pricing so contractors can better understand the process and alleviate some of the frustration and questions which we see often.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published the new Incoterms 2020, rules that define the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the delivery of tangible goods in international trade. The terms also identify when the risk/responsibility for those goods transfer from the seller to the buyer. The new terms took effect on January 1, 2020, and can replace the last version, which is Incoterms 2010.

Lately, we seem to be constantly reminded of the necessity of accurately identifying contracts which are (or should be) covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA) (aka Service Labor Contract Standards (SCLS)) and the subsequent labor category mapping.  Unfortunately, these reminders tend to come at quite a cost, not only financially but also as an extreme burden on your staff.  With this in mind, we decided to share some common issues and suggestions, in hopes of encouraging you to kick off the New Year with a resolution to be proactive in your compliance efforts.

UPDATED – June 18, 2024