Redstone Government Consulting Blog | Small Business Compliance (7)

As we (Redstone Government Consulting, Inc.) began to plan our September 21, 2017 Redstone Edge, we sought out speakers and potential attendees from government agencies, including those from DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) and DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency). In both cases, their potential speakers had a list of questions which seemed to be unnecessary, but related to OGE (Office of Government Ethics) regulations and interpretations, to identify and otherwise prohibit anything which might be an illegal (or at least unethical) gratuity. Although we might not be a “government contractor”, for those who are, there is another regulation in play; FAR 52.203-3 prohibits government contractors from offering gratuities to government employees.

Companies that incur significant costs for training and education of their workforce should have formal policies and procedures in place to ensure reimbursement on their government contracts and subcontracts.  As with all types of costs, there are three major components to consider: allowability, allocability and reasonableness.

Wage Determination Fact Finding

In ASBCA Case No. 61040, 61101, Sonoran Technology appeals their claim for an equitable adjustment due to an increase in the Service Contract Act Wage Determination after contract award.  The solicitation that controlled this contract award included a SCA wage determination and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The bidders were required to use the current SCA wage determination (at the time of the bid) in the formulation of their proposals submitted to the Government.  For future increases in SCA wages and/or benefits, the FAR and the contract have provisions/clauses which cover a contract price change for a wage determination for a multi-year contract.  The issue here whether a new wage determination, incorporated into the contract, prompted a responsibility for the government to adjust the contract price to compensate Sonoran for a corollary increase in its state gross receipts taxes.

The objectives of a timekeeping system are to ensure that labor costs are accurately and timely identified as either direct or indirect in the accounting system.  For certain contract types (e.g. cost-type), these accumulated labor costs are reported and billed to the customer.  It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the labor costs posted in the timekeeping system are proper and reliable. 

Having a well-defined travel policy is important to your employees, managers, accounting staff, contract customers, and auditors. A one-size-fits-all policy may be suitable for some companies, while others may benefit from having multiple policies focused on the business base and/or contract requirements. 

Key Performance Indicators are “Measures that help decision makers define and measure progress toward business goals. KPI metrics translate complex measures into a simple indicator that allows decision makers to assess the current situation and act quickly.” – KAIZEN Analytics All businesses, regardless of size, should to be able to understand and identify their Key Performance Indicators. KPIs can be used at all levels of an organization, ranging from the CEO to the project manager. The CEO focuses on the overall performance or health of the company, while the program or project manager may focus on single programs, tasks within a program, or a group of programs.

Although many of us think of contract disputes as those involving a prime contractor and a U.S. Government agency, subcontracts can also trigger differences of subcontract interpretation between the prime and subcontractor. In Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-215, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided a diversity breach of contract case between government contractors (the contractor and subcontractor names are a matter of public record, thus disclosure). Fluor (the subcontractor) contended that they did not agree to a 2.3% cap to their G&A on a proposal effort with the United States Air Force. Their proposal, as a subcontract to their prime contractor, PAE, was ultimately selected for the award, at which time, a subcontract agreement was executed and the two parties began their respective performance on the contract. The specific language of that subcontract agreement is the heart of this case (differentiated from a dispute over the regulatory language contained in a subcontract flow-down).

We often hear the following statement and question: “My proposal (the government solicitation) calls for a compliant accounting system (SF 1408) and I’ve never been audited.  What do I do?”.

To the uninformed, there may be little or no distinction between the three adjectives which could apply to a contractor (or potential contractor) accounting system. To those dealing with the terminology in government solicitations, there may appear to be no significant distinction because the words seem to be used interchangeably. For example, an Air Force solicitation may have a prerequisite for an adequate accounting system, in contrast to Navy solicitation which substitutes the words acceptable accounting system. Then a third alternative could be a solicitation which gives competing bidders points for approved systems; i.e. 500 points for having an approved accounting system. In most cases, the solicitation links the accounting system status (adequate, acceptable or approved) to an action (written opinion or written determination) by a federal government agency or, less frequently, an opinion by an independent third party such as a CPA or consultant. There is a fourth alternative, an accounting system which has never been reviewed by any independent party (government or otherwise). In this case, a contractor (or a potential contractor) may have an accounting system awaiting its first test, so to speak.

Understanding the requirements and/or selection criteria before preparing a fully responsive bid to a government solicitation cannot be understated. In a recent decision (B-413559.2; B-413559.8) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two separate government contractors’ protests questioned the government’s evaluation scheme. Specifically, the protesters argued that certain terms contained in the request for proposal (RFP) were unduly restrictive. The protestors were ultimately challenging their respective elimination from competition based on the fact that they did not score high enough to be included in the top 60 technically rated offerors.