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.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support
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.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support
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.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support
I recently delivered a presentation at the National Contract Management Association (NCMA) World Congress on the July 15, 2014 DoD proposed changes to DFARS business system Rules (DFARS Case 2012-042) for contractor accounting systems, estimating systems, and material management and accounting systems (MMAS). A public hearing on the proposed changes is scheduled for August 18, 2014 and comments are to be submitted on or before September 15, 2014. As noted in previous blogs, the new rules do not apply to small businesses or to other DFARS defined business systems (purchasing, EVMS, Government property).
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Government Compliance Training, DFARS Business Systems
As published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2014 the Department of Defense has issued a final rule amending the DFARS to require certain qualifying contractors to adequately address the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. This was done to implement those sections of the NDAA for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 respectively dealing with the same subject and is effective May 6, 2014.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, Government Compliance Training, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR)
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, DFARS Business Systems
On April 21, 2014, the DAR editor submitted a proposed new DFARS rule (DFARS Case 2012-042) for Business Systems Compliance to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Generally, this is the last step prior to the publication of the new rules. The full body of the proposed rule has not been published; however, OIRA has published the following abstract on May 23, 2014 as part of its semiannual compilation of all pending federal regulations:
Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, Government Compliance Training, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support
Non-U.S. contractors have many misconceptions as to what rules and regulations they must comply with under U.S. Government contracts. The two most common misunderstandings non-U.S. entities have are (1) their country laws trump U.S. laws and regulations, and (2) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) rules on cost collection and allocations are less strenuous for non-U.S. contractors. These two misconceptions could not be further from the truth.
Topics: Non-US Government Contractor, Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems
On September 5th, DCMA issued a letter to the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) addressing industry concerns raised at a meeting with DCMA on April 25, 2013. We will highlight some key points in the letter that will help contractors deal with DCAA’s assertions which often times are not supported by regulations. The letter reinforces that it is DCMA that determines if a contractor’s business system is compliant or not and if a Corrective Action Request (CARs) is necessary.
Topics: Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support, Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR)
On August 13, 2013, the Federal Register included a proposed rule to reduce the contractor response time (for comments on past performance ratings) from 30 to 14 days. The change is a required reform (i.e. Congressional expectation) to improve contractor past performance databases; per the rule writers, it will “improve communication with contractors, access to performance information within the government and procedures selecting high performing contractors” and “having this data available within 14 days will be to the advantage of most contractors”. Not that it matters, but this strikes us as a meaningless and inconsequential change (to placate Congress) which will do nothing to improve the timeliness of the acquisition process. Moreover, just one more example where contractual due dates are imposed on contractors (who are then held to these due dates) when few if any due dates are contractually imposed on government auditors or contracting officers. Notably when FAR 52.216-7 was revised in May 2011, public comments suggested that with respect to the annual indirect cost rate proposal (contractor due date for submission is six months after the end of the contractor fiscal year) it also include due dates for incurred cost audits to facilitate contract closeout—in their infinite (and biased) wisdom, the rule makers stated that government due dates would be inappropriate because such due dates might impact the quality of the contract audits. Which begs the question, how does one measure audit quality when DCAA completes so few incurred cost audits?
Topics: Incurred Cost Proposal Submission (ICP/ICE), Contracts & Subcontracts Administration, DFARS Business Systems, DCAA Audit Support