Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DFARS Business Systems (11)

MMAS (Material Management and Accounting System reviews are a very complex undertaking for both the company involved and auditors assigned.  MMAS encompasses several areas, which by themselves can be difficult to grasp, but when combined into one overarching system can present issues often not encountered in other business system audits. DCAA auditors themselves usually do not have day-to-day exposure to most of the automated aspects of an MMAS such as with ERP systems, MRP, or grouping pegging and distribution. Through no fault of their own, the vast majority of auditors do not use or even understand the inner workings of these systems, do not use them in their review duties, and are not trained to properly address the various aspects of them. Sure, they may become exposed to them via the reviews of certain reports generated by ERP type systems, but in almost all cases, they do not understand the underlying computerized aspects of them. Most contractor personnel will have a more extensive knowledge of the various systems, but in actuality, most are only vaguely familiar with most areas other than the functional discipline they are assigned to.

In a report issued on July 26, 2016, the DOD- IG (Department of Defense Inspector General) concluded that DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and the Department of the Army (Army General Fund or AGF) failed to support $4.44 Trillion in JV (Journal Voucher) Adjustments.   

On July 6, 2016, the DOE (Department of Energy) quietly withdrew its April 1, 2014 proposed rule, “Contractor Business Systems—Definition and Administration. The April 2014 proposed rule which defined five business systems was modeled after similar business systems requirements imposed upon DOD Contractors (DFARS 252.242-7005 along with six interrelated regulations pertaining to each of the six business systems noting that the five DOE systems excluded MMAS). Also in common with DOD, the statement or mantra, that “Contractor business systems and internal controls are the first line in defense against fraud, waste and abuse. That statement was excessively used by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a Bi-Partisan Commission whose August 2011 248-page report concluded that at least $31 billion and possibly as much as $60 billion was wasted in Iraq & Afghanistan from 2002-2008 ($4.4B to $8.6B annually; by comparison, Government agencies estimate annual improper payments exceeding $100 billion in each year 2009-2015).   If one bothers to read the 248-page report, one would also surmise that most of the waste resulted from government failures which notably includes one singular failure, the lack of any accountability for $6.6B of a $9.1B cash shipment.

“A sound internal control environment, accounting framework, and organizational structure” is criteria number one in DFARS 252.242-7006 Accounting Systems. In fact, all six of the business systems identified in DFARS 252.242-7005 Contractor Business Systems, or commonly known as the “DFARS Business Systems Rule”, references adequate internal controls and the reliability of data. Even more far-reaching than DFARS is that FAR, adhered to by most, if not all US Federal Government agencies, requires adequate contractor internal controls over financial data relied upon for acquisitions. For the purposes of this blog, we shall focus primarily on the DFARS Business Systems Rule as it applies to defense contractors because of the activities of DCAA.

Our partnership with Unanet has benefited a lot of our clients in a multitude of different ways. Not only are our consultants trained and certified to implement the software for our clients, we can also provide a variety of other types of Unanet software support to add value to the software system, accounting environment, and project management. Below are a few examples.

As if you haven’t noticed, this year has been the year of bid proposals for government contractors. My team at Redstone Government Consulting has been working the last six months straight supporting various government contractors in the development and pricing of cost volume proposals. Fortunately for us, we have a team of consultants that can provide support for cost volume proposals and are 100% dedicated to the effort, without the distraction of other projects or responsibilities. Most small business contractors, however, do not have that luxury and the employees working the bid proposal efforts must also continue to complete their daily responsibilities associated with their already busy, “day” job.

Requirement for Improved Auditing of Contracts

In late November, President Obama signed the 2016 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act, S.1356)) which includes a number of sections related to Acquisition Policy or Acquisition Management.  Of particular note for those subject to DCAA contract audits, a requirement for improved auditing which is focused on the so-called incurred cost audit backlog (contractor indirect cost rate proposals (ICPs), submitted annually as required by FAR 52.216-7(d)).   Section 893 prohibits DCAA from performing any audits for non-defense agencies (e.g. NASA) unless DOD certifies that DCAA is current on the ICP backlog.  “Current” is defined as 18 months of incurred cost inventory, further defined as “the level of contractor incurred cost proposals in inventory from prior years that are currently being audited by DCAA”.  As a point of clarification, the inventory should include ICPs currently being audited or those in the queue awaiting audit.  Based upon DCAA’s 2014 report to Congress, DCAA had approximately 18,185 ICPs valued at $822 billion (on hand as of 9/30/2014).  Based upon May 2015 public comments made by DCAA’s Deputy Director, the annual inventory is approximately 7,500 ICPs which would implicate an approximate annual value of $339 billion.

“Help! We received a letter from our ACO informing us that they will be conducting a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) three months from now – can you help us?” This is a scenario we hear all too frequently these days. As promised, DCMA has ramped-up their efforts to ensure contractors purchasing systems are being reviewed and assessed for adequacy.

The simple English Wikipedia encyclopedia defines a Tsunami as “a series of fast moving waves in the ocean caused by powerful earthquakes or volcanic eruptions”. Arguably one can equate negative DOD Inspector General Reports to powerful earthquakes or volcanic eruptions at least to those organizations in the path of these Government oversight tidal waves. What tidal waves you may ask? Well, let’s look at two recent reports from the DOD IG very critical of DCMA; Report No. DODIG-2015-139 and Report No. DODIG-2016-001.  

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits payments made directly or through intermediaries to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining business, retaining business, or directing business to any person.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) continues to be a high priority of enforcement for the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The U.S. Government’s aggressive approach to transactional bribery of foreign government officials will be anything but relaxed as companies and business people can expect a continued prioritization of FCPA cases. The DOJ has added more prosecutors and more resources than ever before. Additionally, U.S. regulators have stated that penalty amounts are not going down.