Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DFARS Business Systems (14)

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).

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.

Not only do you get to pay for the audit, you get pay for the CPA to support an audit of the audit!

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:

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.

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.

Has the Government Learned Its Lesson?  Your Feedback is requested.

Perhaps the most subjective cost allowability determination process utilized by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is that associated with determining reasonableness of Government contractor employee compensation, more specifically the wages and benefits of senior managers and executives. Government contractors more likely to endure examination and challenging of such compensation are those with cost reimbursable contracts which invoke the audit of annual incurred cost proposals (ICP) via contract payment clauses. The audit review is a highly subjective process with the purpose of determining if annual compensation exceeds a hypothetical “reasonableness” benchmark, using ambiguous criteria contained in FAR 31.205-6(b)(2), i.e., measured to wage surveys reflecting compensation for same job position within companies of same size, same industry, same geographic area, and engaged in same type of non-government work as performed under government contracts. 

DCMA reviewers and consultants alike used a years’ old guidance instruction for performing CPSRs (Contractor Purchasing System Reviews) in ascertaining if a contractor’s purchasing practices represent methods for achieving “best value” in purchasing of services and supplies.  This guidance, DCMA Instruction “Consent to Subcontract/Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR)” includes an Appendix B that was specifically used in the reconciliation of a contractor’s purchasing or procurement related policies and procedures.  That appendix in essence is a checklist with 55 far ranging questions from purely subcontract management issues to Affirmative Action and Standards of Conduct items, and effectively represents criteria and parameters for acceptable government contractor procurement practices in addition to preferred documented company policies and procedures. 

The initial reductions in force and furloughs will likely focus on general and administrative functions that support programs directly impacted by sequestration. The Government leaves our customers no choice other than to take this approach.  Yes, there will be job losses and yes there will be loss of legacy corporate knowledge and intangible value that may never return to our customer base.  This is highly unfortunate and yet another outcome of the politics of sequestration and declining Federal budgets.  Reduction in force of Accounting, Compliance, Internal Audit, Procurement, Pricing and other administrative functions with legacy corporate knowledge cannot and will not be replaced with the same corporate value or knowledge and ability to maintain compliance.