Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DFARS Business Systems (13)

Government contractors have been undergoing accounting system reviews by DCAA for years, but more recently, the adequacy of a contractors accounting system does not necessarily have to be determined by DCAA.  Some Government agencies are relying on outside accounting and consulting firms to offer confidence that a government contractor has an adequate accounting system as a prerequisite for awarding a cost reimbursable contract. 

As we approach year-end, many of our clients are in the midst of preparing to close the year, of which tax planning is always an important consideration.  Historically, government contractors have maintained “2 sets of books.”  The first on a GAAP accrual basis, which is required as a component of an adequate accounting system per the SF1408 PreAward Accounting System Survey for all contractors working with flexibly-priced contracts, and the second set of books maintained on a tax basis.  There are a variety of factors that create differences between the two sets of books, such as the IRS 50% rule for business meals vs. FAR 31 allowability/allocability considerations for the same category of expense.  Further, DCAA is not tasked with assessing tax compliance, and as an agency income tax treatment has no impact to the audits performed by the agency. This year, however, a new IRS regulation concerning the capitalization of assets is creating confusion for some government contractors and could impact cost accounting for government contracts. 

Many of us who have retired from DCAA as well as contractors like to discuss the “good old days” before DCAA audits became marathons and helping contractors was not forbidden.  As DCAA became more demanding and intrusive, the preferred alternative for a contractor was to be subjected to the less-intrusive review by DCMA.  Now it appears that contractors may soon be longing for the “good old days” of DCMA as well.

On November 12, 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its report on the results of its review of DCAA actions to comply with section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, regarding requests for company internal audit reports.   The purpose of the GAO review was to assess the extent DCAA’s revised guidance “(1) complied with the act, and whether selected requests for company internal audit reports were documented in accordance with requirements, and (2) contains safeguards to help ensure that companies’ internal audit reports are used only for authorized purposes.”

In a July 18, 2014 blog, we noted that a summation from a recent DOD-IG report (DODIG-2014-088) indicated that DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) had potentially overpaid about $9 million on 33 of 35 spare parts which were sole-sourced to the particular government contractor.  At the time, we only had the summary conclusion (the report was non-releasable); however, we recently obtained (through FOIA) a redacted copy of the DOD-IG report and that provides more clarity in terms of the alleged failings of DLA.  Coincidentally, we’ve recently read an article (Defense E-Brief published by NDIA) which emphasized that the Pentagon is putting defense contractors on notice that DOD contracting officers will demand fair prices for commercial items.

Prior to retiring from DCAA, I was involved in developing the 2012 DCAA Requirements Plan for the Huntsville Branch Office. Since one of my Huntsville contractors was a major, I was required to coordinate my plan with the DCAA Contract Audit Coordinator (CAC) in Chicago. The CAC was estimating the Business Systems staffing requirement for ONE major contractor. The estimate was prepared to consider auditing the Accounting and Billing business system requirements using the draft DCAA audit program for the respective systems. The CAC advised me that its estimate of the hours required to complete TWO business system audits across all segments of the ONE major contractor would be 235,000 over a two-year period. This estimate was communicated to DCAA management at the All Managers Meeting in the fall of 2011.

In March 2013, we blogged about “a new Sheriff in town”. That blog commented on DFARS 252.244-7001 Contractor Purchasing System Administration which sets forth 24 criteria to be used in the determination of an adequate contractor purchasing system. It also reflected on DCMA-INST 109 Contractor Purchasing System Reviews issued November 2012 which has since been revised in January 2014. At the time it was unclear as to just what DCMA would be including in its reviews.  Specifically what criteria would it use when evaluating a contractor’s purchasing system. Late last year we began seeing a bad trend from DCMA reviewers. 

President Obama signed another executive order July 31 2014 which will mandate contractors to disclose prior violations of federal labor laws, the superficial purpose of which is to enable federal procurement process to protect contractor workers and improve integrity of selection of contractors for future awards.  

The new DFARS business system rule requires audits by CPA’s, with DCAA approving the risk assessment and the audit program and reviewing the working papers afterwards.      

The obvious reason for this proposal is that DCAA is unable to perform the audits themselves.  At least not on a timely basis.  When DCAA was performing the audits, it was taking over 2 years to perform 1 system audit.  This rule requires it to be done within 6 months after the close of the contractor’s fiscal year.  In contrast, DCAA was not completing the risk assessment in that length of time.

So now let’s take CPA firms that are used to performing financial statement reviews in a timely manner and handcuff them to DCAA, an Agency that is notorious for missing due dates.

And THEN let that same Agency, in essence, audit the audit.  And furthermore, there are no provisions to limit DCAA to a reasonable time frame for approval of the risk assessment and audit program. 

Contractors who have analyzed the proposed rule released July 15, 2014, which places the responsibility on contractors to support the adequacy of certain business systems via utilization of Independent Public Accounting (IPA) CPA organization audits, have mixed reactions to the rules requirements: reactions ranging from total agony due to added and redundant audit oversight plus administrative strife in dealing with those redundancies, to a real opportunity to achieve some control over obtaining a reasonable and objective analysis of their systems the outcomes of which just might be completed timely.