Redstone Government Consulting Blog | DFARS Business Systems (15)

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.

The Defense Department on February 21 revoked a relatively new payment process that was designed to get cash in the hands of contractors and subcontractors quicker. This revocation of the “Quick Pay” initiative is due to sequestration activities and will cause payments to be delayed by at least 10 days but conceivably even more. Prior to the Quick Pay initiative, which began in 2011, DoD would hold a bill for 30 days to minimize the amount of cash it pays out. The Quick Pay initiative was instituted as a way to get payments to small businesses faster by assuring that small businesses were paid as soon as a bill was verified. The initiative was then expanded in July 2012 to prime contractors as a way to assist those companies’ small business subcontractors. Under the initiative, defense contractors were paid in about 15 to 18 days. 

As 2013 begins, the most significant challenge for all government contractors is sequestration (or major government agency budget reductions). We do know that there will be fewer procurement dollars and in doing its part to reduce government spending, DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) has one clear self-declared mission, “Protecting the Taxpayer” even when such protection is inconsistent with applicable regulations as well as published decisions related to contract disputes.  Although there are ultimately more than four challenges, we believe the following categories top the list where DCAA assertions are  ”out on a regulatory limb” in challenges for government contractors.