Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DCAA Audit Support (5)

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.

In order to fulfill project requirements, there are times necessitating that remote employees travel into the contractor’s site of operations for a meeting, special project, training, performance review, etc. The US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) states that the time employees spend commuting from home to their normal place of work before the beginning of the workday and from work back home at the end of the workday is not considered compensable time worked and therefore is not time for which employees must be paid. What if the employer wants to compensate remote employees for this travel time? The available guidance doesn’t seem to say an employer can’t pay an employee for this time, and many employers do, however, should they, and what things should an employer consider?

Executive Compensation Limit for Government Contractors

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:

If your company has an accounting system audit in the near future, now is the time to get prepared, before DCAA starts knocking at your door. So, what are the common deficiencies? We are going to address the typical post award accounting system audit and deficiencies that DCAA frequently identifies during an audit.

Yes, they are! Did your company make it through its year-end and closing of last year’s books? If so, hooray! But is it really over for those that have Government cost-type contract billings? Not really. OK, as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 42.704, Billing rates, allows interim payments through contract performance with the intent of making the contracting officer or contract auditor approved provisional billings rates as close as possible to the expected final indirect rates. This allows you to bill your costs throughout the year of your cost-type Government contract billings. Now that you know what the year-end indirect rates really are, there is one more thing to do: adjust the provisional indirect billing rates to actual rates in a Public Voucher (Standard Form 1034). Those year-end indirect rates should be net of any unallowable costs in FAR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures. Sounds easy. It really should not be that difficult.

Does the Total of All Proposed Subcontract Costs Exceed 70% of the Total Contract Costs?

Is your company submitting a proposal to the government/prime contractor that includes a total of all subcontract costs exceeding 70 percent of the total costs proposed? If so, you must identify “added value” in your proposal so the government/auditor does not classify the indirect cost applied to the total subcontract cost as “excessive pass-through charges.”  The government considers indirect costs and profit/fee that a contractor applies to subcontract costs that exceed 70 percent of the contract to be “pass through costs.” This applies to lower tier subcontract costs also. If there is no negligible value added by the contractor, the government or auditor will question the indirect costs and profit/fee applied to the subcontract costs as unallowable excessive pass through under FAR 31.203(i).

Government Contractor Purchases below the Micro-Purchase Threshold Require NO Documentation

This is a common misconception within the GOVCON community. While the expectations are clearly less documentation and effort are required than that of a larger dollar value purchase, there is not a magic threshold at which NO documentation of the fair and reasonable price is allowed.

The Government runs away to fight another day and another day.

What is this Groundhog Day?

L3 Technologies, Inc. (L3) takes the Government to task[1] for “challenging both indirect and direct costs paid to L3 on several government contracts for certain years.” During the long-drawn-out process of the litigation, “the government apparently thought better of its claims and withdrew them in toto[2] and represented it would make no further claims on the contract years in question.” L3 opposed, the dismissal seeking either summary judgment in its favor or that the Board “keep the appeals live so that it can obtain a victory that, it believes, would preclude its suffering similar government claims in other contract years.” No such luck, the Board granted the government’s motion and dismissed the appeals.

All we can hope is that someday the fox will get the gingerbread man (aka the Government) and this Groundhog Day nightmare will stop.

[1] Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) Case Nos. 61811, 61813, and 61814

[2] Fancy Latin word for completely.

Lockheed Martin raised a great question to the ASBCA as to “whether the Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C. § 40118 (FAA) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.247-63 only apply to direct personnel performing direct work on covered contracts, or also applies to indirect personnel or indirect travel.”[1] The Board declined to hear the case as there was no “live dispute” at hand.

[1] Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case No. 62377