Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Contracts & Subcontracts Administration (7)

Comparison to FAR

Like CAS 401 and CAS 402 (see previous blog posts on these CAS Standards), CAS 405 is part of modified CAS coverage and is one of the first CAS standards a company encounters. Compliance with this standard will likely not call for any changes to the company’s cost accounting system if the company is compliant with FAR 31.201-6 (Accounting for Unallowable Costs) because the FAR clause has more requirements than CAS 405.

Comparison to FAR

Like CAS 401, CAS 402 is part of modified CAS coverage and is one of the first CAS standards a company encounters. It likely will not call for any changes to the company’s cost accounting system because Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 31.202 (Direct costs) and 31.203 (Indirect costs) give us words very similar to the CAS words.

Whether you call it “defective pricing” (DP) or Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) or even the current labeling of Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (TCoPD - 41 USC Ch. 35) there is not much new about the impact to Federal Government contractors. The law supporting this goes back to 1962 in an environment where Congress believed contractors were overcharging the Government for negotiated goods or services. My how times have not changed. This could also describe our current Congress and may create worry among government prime and subcontractors.

DoD Issued a Final Rule amending the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to require contracting officers to consider Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) risk assessments when evaluating a suppliers quote or offer. The final rule is effective March 22, 2023. The Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) is the authoritative source to retrieve supplier product and performance information assessments for the DoD acquisition community to use in identifying, assessing, and monitoring unclassified performance.

As the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) season ramps up we have noticed a trend when it comes to award of SBIRs and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTRs) to small businesses in regard to cost analysis as part of Phase 1 awards, as well as dealing with the administration associated with a Phase 2 cost-reimbursable awards. A significant part of the SBIR process is to educate small businesses on the process and controls required to do businesses with the U.S. Government. The cost-reimbursable nature of phase 2 awards inevitably means that small businesses will have the opportunity to undergo accounting system adequacy determination, develop provisional billing rates, and undergo incurred cost submission review or audit. These are key barriers to entry to many businesses seeking to work with the U.S. Government and the pursuit of SBIR/STTR work not only provided necessary funding for small business research and development (R&D), but also an avenue to clear necessary hurdles when it comes to the back-office compliance. At least that was the case historically.

DoD issued a Final Rule (DFARS Case 2021-D001) amending the DFARS to expand Contracts Eligible for Quick Closeout. The final rule is effective March 1, 2023. We believe there will be an increase in the number of DCMA requests to apply the quick closeout procedures to contracts with less than $2 million of unsettled direct and indirect cost, or if it is in the best interest of the government regardless of the dollar amount of the contract or unsettled costs. Seeing as DCAA questions less than 1% of the incurred cost it does get around to auditing. It would be in DoD’s best interest to close all completed contracts. One can only hope.

Many new government contractors are frustrated by being told they have a CAS 401 noncompliance, especially if they are not CAS covered. This is, of course, wrong terminology for non-CAS covered contractors, but is shorthand for saying the company is not estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs the same way. This is most frequently a difference between how a company estimates cost and then how the company accumulates and reports costs. This is not only important to the government, but to the company itself. A contractor cannot determine whether it is losing money on a contract if there is no way to compare what was bid to what was incurred. This is likely one of the first CAS standards a company encounters because even modified coverage calls this standard into play.

As inflation continues to rise, you are likely wondering what the General Services Administration (GSA) guidance to contractors will impact you. The issue of inflation has many companies looking for answers, and although GSA has taken steps to address inflation, there is still a lot to be discussed. In this article, we will look at what types of relief and guidance GSA is providing.

Yes, the door just opened for potential relief from unanticipated inflation on fixed-priced contracts, but what’s beyond the door is still unclear. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes Section 822, Modification of Contracts to Provide Extraordinary Relief Due to Inflation Impacts, which builds upon DoD’s September 9, 2022, inflation guidance through use of FAR Part 50, Extraordinary Contractual Actions and the Safety Act, requests submitted to your contracting officer to provide an upward adjustment (increase contract value) and this can be done for prime and subcontractors. Note that this NDAA section does not create an obligation for the Government to pay for unanticipated inflation, but it is a “discretionary” expenditure where the Government may pay for the effects of unanticipated inflation. What remains to be seen is exactly how and how much will be provided to your contract(s).

You pride yourself on working well and getting along with everyone, at least professionally. However, there is an auditor that seems to get under your skin. What do you do? Well, although there may not be a “magic bullet” to all make it better. I propose the following to get you through the situation at hand: