Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (4)

Comparison to FAR

Like CAS 401 and CAS 402 (see previous blog posts on these CAS Standards), CAS 405 is part of modified CAS coverage and is one of the first CAS standards a company encounters. Compliance with this standard will likely not call for any changes to the company’s cost accounting system if the company is compliant with FAR 31.201-6 (Accounting for Unallowable Costs) because the FAR clause has more requirements than CAS 405.

In late 2008, the Final Rule on Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (“CoBEC”) was added to FAR Part 3 (Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest) in response to the heightened focus on increased lapses in corporate ethical behavior. FAR Subpart 3.10 sets forth guidance for all contractors with regard to enhanced ethical and compliance standards and requires the insertion of the clause at FAR 52.203-13 in solicitations and contracts if the value of such contract is expected to exceed $6 million, and the performance of which is 120 days or longer. DCAA focuses on compliance with FAR 52.203-13 when conducting accounting system audits.

Comparison to FAR

Like CAS 401, CAS 402 is part of modified CAS coverage and is one of the first CAS standards a company encounters. It likely will not call for any changes to the company’s cost accounting system because Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 31.202 (Direct costs) and 31.203 (Indirect costs) give us words very similar to the CAS words.

FAR 36.203, Government estimate of construction costs, and FAR 36.605, Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work, require the development of an independent Government estimate of the cost of construction costs and architect-engineer services when the value is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). The estimate shall be prepared in as much detail as though the Government were competing for award or on the basis of a detailed analysis of the required work as though the Government were submitting a proposal. Access to the Government estimate is limited to Government personnel unless during negotiations the contracting officer identifies a specialized task and discloser is deemed necessary to arrive at a fair and reasonable price.

Whether you call it “defective pricing” (DP) or Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) or even the current labeling of Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (TCoPD - 41 USC Ch. 35) there is not much new about the impact to Federal Government contractors. The law supporting this goes back to 1962 in an environment where Congress believed contractors were overcharging the Government for negotiated goods or services. My how times have not changed. This could also describe our current Congress and may create worry among government prime and subcontractors.

As the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) season ramps up we have noticed a trend when it comes to award of SBIRs and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTRs) to small businesses in regard to cost analysis as part of Phase 1 awards, as well as dealing with the administration associated with a Phase 2 cost-reimbursable awards. A significant part of the SBIR process is to educate small businesses on the process and controls required to do businesses with the U.S. Government. The cost-reimbursable nature of phase 2 awards inevitably means that small businesses will have the opportunity to undergo accounting system adequacy determination, develop provisional billing rates, and undergo incurred cost submission review or audit. These are key barriers to entry to many businesses seeking to work with the U.S. Government and the pursuit of SBIR/STTR work not only provided necessary funding for small business research and development (R&D), but also an avenue to clear necessary hurdles when it comes to the back-office compliance. At least that was the case historically.

Many new government contractors are frustrated by being told they have a CAS 401 noncompliance, especially if they are not CAS covered. This is, of course, wrong terminology for non-CAS covered contractors, but is shorthand for saying the company is not estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs the same way. This is most frequently a difference between how a company estimates cost and then how the company accumulates and reports costs. This is not only important to the government, but to the company itself. A contractor cannot determine whether it is losing money on a contract if there is no way to compare what was bid to what was incurred. This is likely one of the first CAS standards a company encounters because even modified coverage calls this standard into play.

Oftentimes when supporting the production of cost volumes and pricing exercises for clients, we’re given a basis of estimate (BOE) that has been written by someone on the technical team. Even being a group of accounting and compliance professionals who know little in areas such as cyber, engineering, or other technical areas of the scope of work, we’re left scratching our heads. This usually leads to several back-and-forth discussions centered around gleaning enough information from the technical team to pass the proverbial government “sniff test”.

In this uber competitive labor market, it is more crucial than ever to be creative with compensation and benefits. Compensation programs and retention strategies have expanded beyond base compensation and bonus to include all methods in which employees are rewarded and incentivized. As a Federal Government Contractor, it is especially important to understand the FAR requirements which may impact compensation decisions and to document all processes and procedures related to your compensation program.

Executive Compensation Limit for Government Contractors