Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Contracts & Subcontracts Administration (9)

This is the third blog in a three-part series on progress payments for Government contractors. In this blog we will discuss the estimate to complete, and the adjustments needed when there is a projected loss on a contract.

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

This is the second blog in a three-part series on progress payments. This blog addresses Line 5, Contract Price and Line 11, Total eligible costs on the SF1443 Contractor’s Request for Progress Payment Form.

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

This is the first blog on a three-part series on progress payments and discusses progress payments and the applicable rates.

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

DCAA issued some guidance on PPP forgiveness treatment in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to its auditors. The FAQs were not front and center on DCAA’s website but search on “PPP” did find them at: COVID FAQ for PWS 07142021 (dcaa.mil).

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), Small Business Compliance, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DCAA Audit Support, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Government Regulations, COVID-19, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loans, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Wage Determination Clauses Can Bite You

What is the spookiest and scariest story for a government contractor? How about a story where the government imposes an expense on a contractor, but doesn’t allow for consideration of this expense in the contract value? So, in layman’s terms, losing money (profit) on government contracts. In a recent ASBCA decision, this is exactly what happened.

Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Government Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

In 2017 Congress directed through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that changes be made to the treatment of independent research and development (IR&D) costs and required the Defense Contract Audit Agency to provide as part of its annual report to Congress both independent research and development and bid and proposal (B&P) costs expended by DoD contractors. Congress intended this change to apply to indirect costs incurred on or after October 1, 2017. The Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR) Council must have read over that part.

Topics: Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, Government Regulations

On July 9th, 2021, the Department of Defense (DoD)issued a final rule in the Federal Register to implement 10 U.S.C. 2330a which requires the DoD to establish a data collection system to provide certain management information about an awarded contract or task order that is valued in excess of $3 million. This new rule is applicable for the following service acquisition portfolio groups:

• logistics management services
• equipment-related services
• knowledge-based services
• electronics and communications services

You may read the entire rule here.

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Government Compliance Training, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support, System Award Management (SAM), Government Regulations

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.

Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR), Commercial Item Determination

What are the circumstances necessitating the use of a letter contract which is also referred to as an undefinitized contract? The main circumstance is the government’s interests demand that the contractor immediately begin work and negotiating the final contract price (definitized) isn’t possible in order to meet the needs of the buying activity. Letter contracts should only be used when the work needs to immediately begin and there isn’t sufficient time to agree on the final terms and conditions. The government and prime contractors use letter contracts to immediately start work and then set a schedule to work towards negotiating to the finish line.

Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

DoD-IG Goes After DCMA for not Supporting DCAA Findings

On February 26, 2021, the DoD-IG issued an audit report raising significant concern about the actions taken by DCMA Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) in relation to DCAA audit findings. The Finding section of the DoD-IG report found that out of 30 DCAA audit reports at two of the largest DoD contractors, 14 were not properly addressed per Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements by the cognizant ACO. Our guess and POGO believes the large DoD contractors are Lockheed Martin and Boeing – but this is only our guess. The DoD-IG report goes on to state that: “As a result, DCMA contracting officer actions on the eight audit reports may have resulted in improperly reimbursing DoD contractors up to $97 million in unallowable costs on Government contracts. In addition, because DCMA contracting officers did not take timely action on six audit reports, they delayed the correction of CAS noncompliances and the recovery of any increased costs due to the Government.” The report goes on to state that: “The Defense Contract Management Agency Director agreed with all five recommendations,” including reviewing ACO decisions to “Disallow and recoup any unallowable costs not previously disallowed.” (Evaluation of Defense Contract Management Agency Actions Taken on Defense Contract Audit Agency Report Findings Involving Two of the Largest Department of Defense Contractors – DoD-IG-2021-056, Dated February 26, 2021)

Topics: Litigation Consulting Support, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DOD IG, DCAA Audit Support, Government Regulations, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)