Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Litigation Consulting Support

Yet another interesting case to consider from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – ACLR, LLC v. United States Court of Appeals 2013-1190.

Lessons Learned from a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) case – Platinum Services, Inc. ASBCA Nos. 62199, 62200.

Bottom Line Up Front

The contractor (Platinum Services, Inc. – PSI), the Army, and even the Board all agree the services were rendered, however, since an official certified claim was not filed within six years from the date of the initial invoicing, the Government does not have to pay.

The Court of Appeals decision came out on June 26, 2024, and I have been trying work it through my head how they got to their decision. I for sure do not have an answer but I have come up with some ideas and concerns. International Development Solutions, LLC v. Secretary of State, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 68 CCF ¶82,658, (Jun. 26, 2024)

Investigations, internal or otherwise, are necessitated for a variety of reasons and take many different forms. Internal complaints of misconduct, harassment, discrimination or ethical violations must be addressed timely and thoroughly. Failure to do so can lead to legal exposure, whistleblower complaints and even poor morale among your employees. It is always preferable to address complaints internally before an investigation is initiated by the Department of Labor (DoL) after an employee (current or former) goes to them because they believe you failed to take their concerns seriously. Likewise, you hope that the first time you hear about a complaint of discrimination or harassment is not when you receive a Charge of Discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Establishing an internal reporting and investigation process that ensures prompt and fair action will provide the assurances your employees need so they feel comfortable raising their concerns internally and will position your company to defend any potential complaints made to outside agencies.

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.

Defense Pricing Memo – September 30, 2020

Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Mr. Kim Harrington issued a memo on September 30, 2020 to announce that the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) has a new Defective Pricing Pilot Team to provide support to Procuring Contracting Officers (PCOs) to resolve and disposition Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) compliance audits. DCAA’s new favorite audit it appears. Reading a little into the memo (ok – not too much reading as the memo uses the word – backlog) DCAA has apparently created a new backlog for DoD of what they affectionately call TiN audits. Not a real surprise as DCAA created a TiN team a few years back. DCAA historically had an extensive workload development process to audit all large fixed priced contracts and sample smaller ones that created more audits than resources could accommodate. As we have reported before, now that DCAA is looking for work, the rush appears to be on for DCAA auditors to get back into more defective pricing audits.

How would you feel if you had unlimited access to all the resources Redstone Government Consulting had to offer?  Relief?  Security?  Control?  Protected?  Re-focused?