Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Government Regulations (18)

ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, had an impact on the way many contractors recognized revenue related to contracts with the Federal Government. Redstone has covered this topic a couple of times (January 26, 2021 Government Contractor Challenges in 2021 Webinar and May 6, 2021 MossAdam/Redstone Webinar Compliance Changes for Government Contractors). ASC 606 also impacts the recognition of sales commissions. The overarching GAAP matching principle requires that the expense of sales be matched to the recognition of the related revenue.

Recent Northrop Appeal

Northrop attempted to open up a dialog with Government as to the allowability of litigation settlement costs it planned to include in its 2019-2023 Sector Home Office Allocation Submission. Of course, Northrop believed the cost was allowable, and the Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) believed the costs to be unallowable.

DoD-IG Goes After DCMA for not Supporting DCAA Findings

On February 26, 2021, the DoD-IG issued an audit report raising significant concern about the actions taken by DCMA Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs) in relation to DCAA audit findings. The Finding section of the DoD-IG report found that out of 30 DCAA audit reports at two of the largest DoD contractors, 14 were not properly addressed per Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements by the cognizant ACO. Our guess and POGO believes the large DoD contractors are Lockheed Martin and Boeing – but this is only our guess. The DoD-IG report goes on to state that: “As a result, DCMA contracting officer actions on the eight audit reports may have resulted in improperly reimbursing DoD contractors up to $97 million in unallowable costs on Government contracts. In addition, because DCMA contracting officers did not take timely action on six audit reports, they delayed the correction of CAS noncompliances and the recovery of any increased costs due to the Government.” The report goes on to state that: “The Defense Contract Management Agency Director agreed with all five recommendations,” including reviewing ACO decisions to “Disallow and recoup any unallowable costs not previously disallowed.” (Evaluation of Defense Contract Management Agency Actions Taken on Defense Contract Audit Agency Report Findings Involving Two of the Largest Department of Defense Contractors – DoD-IG-2021-056, Dated February 26, 2021)

Where does DCAA’s View of the Contractor and their Role in Acquisition Come From?

DCAA Auditor Training

DCAA website provides that new auditors receive in-depth professional training from DCAA’s Defense Contract Audit Institute (DCAI), along with on-the-job training at their assigned field audit office. DCAI is located in Atlanta, GA and provides auditors with an excellent basis on which to start their careers in contract audit. Many at Redstone GCI can speak from personal experience that, once you get past the exciting MARTA ride from the airport, the instructors at DCAI provide a good hands-on learning environment. However, we are not sure if it is a subliminal message piped into the classroom or local indoctrination at assigned field offices, but the auditors are coming away with the impression that no contractors can be trusted, and a good audit opinion has to include questioned cost.

Let’s Set the Stage

So as a contractor you have received several cost-based contracts (i.e., subject to FAR Part 31), however they have all been less than $7.5M. You are flying under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) radar. You get a $9M cost-based contract that does not meet any of the exceptions to CAS covered listed at 9903.201-1(b) – categories of contracts and subcontracts exempt from all CAS requirements. The dreaded “trigger contract.”

DCAA/DCMA Viewpoint

If you look through the DCAA audit guidance and the DCMA Contractor Purchasing System Review guidance, you would think that the Government is only concerned with a Commercial Item Determination when the purchase value exceeds $2M. This is all based on commerciality being an exception to the requirement for certified cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403-1(b)(3) & (c)(3).

What’s New in this Long-Standing Area?

The FAR Council at long last issues final rule to implement the Trump Executive Order 13881, Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials. Only a few days later a Biden Executive Order 14005, Ensuring Future of America is Made in America by all of America’s Workers, hit the streets.

A Little Background

FAR Part 31, Cost Principles, is the regulation that government contractors must follow in order to account for cost on most government contracts. Within FAR Part 31 is FAR 31.205, Selected Costs. This part of the cost principles regulation specifically spells out unallowable cost that the government will not pay for under a government contract. This section starts at FAR 31.205-1 and goes all the way up to FAR 31.205-52. However, it should be noted that FAR 31.205-2, 5, 9, 24, 45, and 50 are “Reserved” – These reserved cost areas went the way of the dinosaur over time, hopefully not to return. For example, FAR 31.204-2, Automatic Data Processing Equipment Leasing Costs, required an annual demonstration that leasing computer equipment was cost-effective, i.e., lowest cost to the Federal Government.

Here are the Details

DoD issued a DFARs Final Rule D2019-D029 – Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors, effective October 1, 2020, to implement several sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that addresses treatment of commingled items purchased by contractors and services provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items. This blog only addresses the DFARS change related to services provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items.

This article is under review as a result of EO 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, signed by President Trump on January 21, 2025. As we await further information from OFCCP and the courts, please reference this article for current status and action items.

On September 22, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) seeking to end what is characterized in the Order as "training sessions based on race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating" in the federal workforce, the Uniformed Services, and among federal contractors. The EO provides that it will be the policy of the United States "not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating" in the federal workforce and the Uniformed Services, and not to let grant funds to be used for these purposes.