Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DCAA Audit Support (18)

It seems like there are a lot of agencies being audited on what they are doing with DCAA audit findings. In September, the DoD-IG announced an audit of 26 contracts issued from FY 2014-2017 by Navy, DLA, Army and Air Force contracting officers. It’s stated objective is “to determine whether contracting officer actions during contract negotiations complied with acquisition regulations when contractor proposals were deemed inadequate by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).”  At the same time, they announced an audit of DCMA with an audit objective “to determine the appropriateness of contracting officer actions to resolve and disposition compensation costs that the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has questioned in audits of DoD contractor incurred cost claims submitted to the Government.

We have received a number of inquiries from clients related to cost allowability for Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). In this Part II, we focus on the cost allowability rules and regulations for government contractors (Part I provided a more general description of ESOPs).

As we (Redstone Government Consulting, Inc.) began to plan our September 21, 2017 Redstone Edge, we sought out speakers and potential attendees from government agencies, including those from DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) and DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency). In both cases, their potential speakers had a list of questions which seemed to be unnecessary, but related to OGE (Office of Government Ethics) regulations and interpretations, to identify and otherwise prohibit anything which might be an illegal (or at least unethical) gratuity. Although we might not be a “government contractor”, for those who are, there is another regulation in play; FAR 52.203-3 prohibits government contractors from offering gratuities to government employees.

Companies that incur significant costs for training and education of their workforce should have formal policies and procedures in place to ensure reimbursement on their government contracts and subcontracts.  As with all types of costs, there are three major components to consider: allowability, allocability and reasonableness.

Wage Determination Fact Finding

In ASBCA Case No. 61040, 61101, Sonoran Technology appeals their claim for an equitable adjustment due to an increase in the Service Contract Act Wage Determination after contract award.  The solicitation that controlled this contract award included a SCA wage determination and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The bidders were required to use the current SCA wage determination (at the time of the bid) in the formulation of their proposals submitted to the Government.  For future increases in SCA wages and/or benefits, the FAR and the contract have provisions/clauses which cover a contract price change for a wage determination for a multi-year contract.  The issue here whether a new wage determination, incorporated into the contract, prompted a responsibility for the government to adjust the contract price to compensate Sonoran for a corollary increase in its state gross receipts taxes.

The objectives of a timekeeping system are to ensure that labor costs are accurately and timely identified as either direct or indirect in the accounting system.  For certain contract types (e.g. cost-type), these accumulated labor costs are reported and billed to the customer.  It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the labor costs posted in the timekeeping system are proper and reliable. 

Congressman Mac Thornberry recently introduced the “Defense Acquisition Streamlining and Transparency Act” to improve the acquisition system and workforce, and improve transparency in the acquisition system. Click here to download the 80-page bill.

Virtually all government contractors and anyone else hoping for regulatory relief from the new administration is aware of the Executive Order (EO) requiring a 2 for 1 reduction in agency regulations for each new regulation. In an effort to show that DCAA is politically savvy and much more positive and proactive than most agencies (who are less than enthusiastic about this EO), DCAA has begun to vet some “similar to” audit strategies. The following are some of the highlights of a DCAA Press Conference to announce a broad range of “2 for 1 reductions”.

Since most incurred cost proposals (ICPs) are due June 30, it is a good time for contractors to review the DCAA criteria for audit selection in order to minimize (where possible) the potential that their ICP will be selected for audit. All ICPs with an auditable dollar volume (ADV) greater than $250 million are automatically selected for audit. ICPs with an ADV between $100 million and $250 million of ADV that have not been audited in the last 3 years are also automatically selected for audit. ADV is determined by the amount of cost reimbursable, i.e. cost type and T&M, contract revenue for the fiscal year.

Whether you are new to government contracting or have been “in the game” forever, it’s not unusual for employees to get caught up in the events of the day and overlook the importance of obtaining and maintaining adequate supporting documentation in the support of pricing proposals (pre-contract award) and actual costs – both direct and indirect (post-contract award).  In a perfect world, employees are properly trained on adequate supporting documentation and documenting the appropriate files accordingly. But we aren’t living in a perfect world, and we even debate over what adequate supporting documentation entails.