Friday, April 29, 2011

Precontract Costs

Contractors need to be very careful about incurring costs prior to the contract award date. FAR provides a very limited set of circumstances under which precontract costs are allowable. Failure to heed those requirements could render the costs unallowable under Government contracts.

Precontract costs are those incurred before the effective date of the contract,
  1. directly pursuant to the negotiation and
  2. in anticipation of the contract award when such incurrence is necessary to comply with the proposed contract delivery schedule.
If the costs meet these two criteria, they are allowable to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the contract (see FAR 31.205-32).

Contractors contemplating the expenditure of precontract costs are strongly advised (by FAR 31.109) to negotiate an advance agreement with the contracting officer in order to avoid possible subsequent disallowance or dispute based on unreasonableness, unallocability, or unallowability.

Advance agreements may be negotiated either before or during a contract but should be negotiated before incurrence of the costs involved. The agreements must be in writing, executed by both contracting parties, and incorporated into applicable current and future contracts.

Examples for which advance agreements may be particularly important specifically include precontract costs (see FAR 31.109(h)(4)).

Thursday, April 28, 2011

CAS 410 - Allocation of Business Unit G&A Expenses to Final Cost Objectives

CAS 410 - Allocation of Business Unit General and Administrative Expenses to Final Cost Objectives. CAS 410 provides criteria for allocating general and administrative (G&A) expenses to final cost objectives (e.g. contracts) and provides guidelines for the type of expenses that should be included in the G&A expense pool. It also requires that G&A expenses be allocated on a cost input base which represents the total activity of the company.

This could well be one of the most contentious of all the CAS standards because it requires a level of judgment to implement. It requires contractors to use judgment on what costs should be included in the pool and it requires the exercise of judgment to devise an "allocation base" that represents the total activity of the company. If the Government doesn't like the allocation methodology it will cite a contractor in noncompliance with CAS 410 (or FAR 15-203(d) - the functionally equivalent FAR requirement that applies to non-CAS covered contractors. This gets a little technical so hold on.
 
G&A expenses must be grouped in a separate indirect cost pool and allocated only to final cost objectives. For an expense to be classified as G&A, it must be incurred for managing and administering the whole business unit. Therefore, those management expenses that can be more directly measured by a base other than cost input should be removed from the G&A expense pool. For example, expenses such as program management, procurement, subcontract administration, G&A expenses incurred for another segment, etc., should not be identified as G&A expenses. They should be the subject of a separate distribution in reasonable proportion to the benefits received. However, immaterial expenses which are not G&A may be included in the G&A expense pool. The G&A expense pool may be combined with other expenses allocated to final cost objectives if the base for the combined pool is appropriate for allocating both the G&A expense pool and the other expenses, and the individual and total expenses of the G&A  expense pool can be identified separately from the other expenses.

 
The allocation base for allocating G&A expenses must include any unallowable costs that were charged or allocated to the base. FAR 31.203(d) requires that G&A expenses be allocated to final cost objectives through a base that contains unallowable costs. FAR 31.203(d) states that "all items properly includable in an indirect cost base should bear a pro rata share of indirect costs irrespective of their acceptance as Government contracts costs."

Selling costs may be accounted for in the G&A expense pool or in a separate pool. CAS 410 takes a permissive position. CAS 410.40(d) requires a separate allocation of costs, if the costs can be allocated to business unit cost objectives on a beneficial or causal relationship which is best measured by a base other than a cost input base. Therefore, if the inclusion of selling costs in the G&A pool results in an inequitable allocation, auditors should carefully evaluate the selling activities to determine whether selling costs should be separately allocated on a beneficial or causal relationship by a different base.

 
Home office expenses allocated to a segment may or may not be included in the segment's G&A expense pool. The standard states that allocation of line management expenses, residual expenses and directly allocated expenses related to managing and administering the receiving segments are to be included in the G&A expense pool. Separate allocations of home office centralized service functions, staff management of specific activities of segments, and significant central payments of accruals must be allocated to the benefiting cost objective. However, when there is no discernible causal or beneficial relationship with any of the cost objectives, these expenses may be included in the segments G&A expense pool.
 
Any other costs which do not satisfy the definition of G&A expenses maybe included in the G&A expense pool if they were previously a part of G&A and cannot be allocated to final cost objectives on a beneficial or causal relationship best measured by a base other than a cost input base.

CAS 410 requires that a cost input base used to allocate the G&A expense pool include all significant elements of that cost input which represent the total activity of the business unit. The cost input base selected to represent the total activity of a business unit during a cost accounting period may be;
  1. total cost input (TCI)
  2. value-added cost input (TCI less material and subcontract costs) - used where the inclusion of material and subcontract costs would significantly distort the allocation of the G&A expense pool in relation to the benefits received and where costs other than direct labor are significant measures of total activity.
  3. single element cost input - used where a single element base (e.g. direct labor hours, direct labor dollars, etc) represents that total activity of a business unit. A single element base is inappropriate where it is an insignificant part of the total cost of some of the final cost objectives.
The determination of which cost input base best represent the total activity of a business unit must be judged on the basis of the circumstances of each business unit.

CAS 410 permits a special allocation of G&A expenses if a particular final cost objective would receive a disproportionate allocation of G&A expense by using the cost input base. However, the allocation from the G&A expense pool to the particular final cost objective must be commensurate with the benefits received. The amount of the special allocation must also be removed from the existing G&A expense pool and the particular final cost objectives base costs must be removed from the base used to allocate the G&A pool.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

DoD to Accelerate Payments to Small Businesses

DFARS (DoD FAR Supplements) was amended today to provide for accelerated payments to all small business concerns. Until now, a small business must have also been "disadvantaged" in order to qualify for the accelerated payment program. Now, the term "disadvantaged" has been removed from the language at DFARS 232.903 and DFARS 232.906(a)(ii), thereby extending this payment policy uniformly to all small business concerns.

The basic "accelerated payment" policy is to pay small business concerns as quickly as possible after invoices and all proper documentation, including acceptance, are received and before normal payment due dates established in the contract (see DFARS 232.906(a)).

This is an interim rule because it was made without public comment. According to DoD, the action was necessary to ensure DoD implements cash flow improvements for small business firms as quickly as possible. Accelerating payments is a way to boost the financial health of small businesses. There is a two month public comment period, after which the interim rule will most likely become final, without change.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

FAPIIS is 'Live"

Earlier this month, we reported that the Government's Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity System (FAPIIS) was set to go public on April 15th. FAPIIS is an information system that collects contractors' past performance reviews, suspensions, debarments, non-responsibility determinations, and civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings relating to a contractor's performance of federal, state, and local contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. Contracting officers review the information in FAPIIS when making their responsibility determinations. Information posted after April 15th becomes public record. Information posted prior to April 15 continues to be for offical use only.

You can access FAPIIS here. It doesn't require any registration, login ID or password. The program is off to a slow start. So far, there are only two records in the entire database, both involving terminated contracts (one for default, the other for cause).

By the way, if you're a contractor, you don't want to see your name listed in this database. Although the FAPIIS contains past performance evaluations which are usually positive, that part of the database is not available to the public. It appears that only negative information will be available. We recommend that contractors periodically monitor it to ensure its accuracy, especially when (or before) submitting proposals to the Government. Erroneous information in this database could affect you chances of winning a bid.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Is this the Future for all Government Publications?

GSA (General Services Administration) just announced that it will no longer publish the "looseleaf" version of the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), the regulations that limit the amount of travel costs that contractors can charge the Government (FAR 31.205-46(a)(23)(i)) when traveling within the contiguous United States. 

Looseleaf pages of the FTR were originally made available at a time when it was the only means to view a change to either regulation in context with the existing text until the publication of the next volume of Title 41 of the Code of Regulations (41 CFR title 41) was published the following July 1. Patrons who maintained the regulations in looseleaf could purchase subscriptions from the Government Printing Office (GPO) and when any change to the FTR occurred, they would be sent the new pages. At best, it could be weeks and even months before patrons would receive the latest changes. With the coming of new technology, GSA began producing these pages and sending them to patrons electronically.

Because of today's technologies, those who need and use travel regulations can view and print the latest changes on the day the changes are published in the Federal Register. Even with electronic distribution however, GSA continued to produce the looseleaf pages for these changes while the need for them has become almost nonexistent. GSA finally concluded that the time that it takes to produce the pages for information already available is not an efficient use of government resources and has decided to discontinue the production of the looseleaf versions of the FTR immediately.

Today, nearly everything that the Government prints is readily available in electronic format. Most businesses needing (or preferring) printed material, simply download and print the file rather than order it and wait for the mail to arrive.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Disclosing Political Contributions

The administration is circulating a draft Executive Order that will require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures that they have made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. Additionally, a formal "certification" process as to the accuracy of the data submitted will be a condition of award. This draft Executive Order directs the FAR councils to amend the the acquisition regulations by year end (presumably 2011) with rules and regulations and issue such orders as are deemed necessary and appropriate to carry out this order
.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has strongly opposed the order, stating;
The obvious danger of this is that it will lead prospective businessmen and businesswomen to a choice no American should ever be forced to make: ‘Do I support the party in power in the hopes I can continue my livelihood, or do I support the candidate I believe will do the best job?’ This applies not only to large contractors. It also includes everyone from the zipper maker for military uniforms to the daycare facility operator for federal workplaces and landscapers who service a National Park. The implication is clear – pony up for the good guys or risk paying the price. As Senator Mitch McConnell aptly said yesterday “No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation before deciding if you’re worthy of a government contract. And no one should have to worry about whether their political support will determine their ability to get or keep a federal contract or keep their job.”
According to the draft order, this requirement is all in the name of transparency. All disclosed data is to be made publicly available in a centralized, searchable, sortable, downloadable and machine readable format on http://www.data.gov/ as soon as practicable upon submission.