PNWC’s Government Contracting Update - page 53

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has significantly reformatted its on-line version of the Contract Audit Manual (CAM).The on-line version of CAM is the only version currently available – DCAA discontinued the print version several years ago. The previous on-line versions were simply .PDF copies of the printed version. The new formatting takes advantage of web-based navigation (e.g. hyperlinking) so that the reader, looking at the table of contents in one of the chapters, can navigate directly to the selected section by clicking within the table of contents. Additionally, there are copious hyperlinks within the text itself that take you directly to a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) section, or other regulations or statutes, etc. Clicking on a double asterisks will take you back to the table of contents for that chapter. The topical index, although sharing the formatting style used throughout CAM, does not contain hyperlinks. Hopefully DCAA will remedy that omission shortly.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: DCAA Re-formats its Contract Audit Manual

The cost principles in FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) Part 31 do not cover every element of cost that may be incurred by a Government contractor. The absence of coverage of a particular cost category however does not mean the cost are automatically allowable, or even unallowable. Remember, a cost must also be reasonable and allocable to the contract and it must also comply with contract terms. There are a lot of situations where the Government will cap certain costs by inserting provisions in the contract. For example, DOE (Energy) likes to cap executive compensation and many Agencies will cap the amount of overtime that can be charged to their contract(s).

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Costs Not Covered by a FAR Cost Principle

Last month, a new regulation requiring DoD contractors who expend more than $11 million a year on IR&D activities to engage in technical interchanges with DoD employees before the costs were incurred as a condition of allowability, went into effect (see Contractors Must Now Engage in Technical Exchanges with DoD Prior to Incurring IR&D Costs).

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: DoD Relaxes IR&D Technical Interchange Rules for Fiscal Year 2017

We’ve discussed the importance of maintaining an adequate timekeeping system many times on this blog. Whether using a manual (paper or Excel) or an automated timekeeping system (tons of them out there at nominal cost), the basic requirements are the same; employees record their time at least daily, supervisors, or someone that has first hand knowledge of the employees’ activities reviews and signs (manually or electronically) certifying that the hours are accurate, and any changes to original entries are documented. Beyond that, contractors must implement some kind of monitoring process to ensure that employees are adhering to established timekeeping policies and the results of those monitoring activities must be sent to management for corrective action, if any.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Falsified Timecard Leads to False Claim Against Contractor Employee

The Department of Defense issued guidance yesterday reminding its contracting officers to pay attention to the DFARS (DoD FAR Supplement) guidelines for determining profit or fee on negotiated contracts (see Guidance on Evaluation of Risk in Negotiating Contract Profit or Fee).

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: DoD Weighted Guidelines for Determining Profit and Fee

Last March, the DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) issued a solicitation for IT (Information Technology) services and supplies. The RFP (Request for Proposal) contemplated the award of up to 35 ID/IQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) contracts over a 10 year period.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Proof of an Adequate Accounting System Must be on CPA Letterhead

The FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) Councils have proposed an amendment to “clarify” that Government agency acquisition personnel are permitted and encouraged to engage in responsible and constructive exchanges with industry, so long as those exchanges are consistent with existing law and regulation and do not promote an unfair competitive advantage to particular firms. That’s well and good but your average acquisition person is not going to know what the existing laws and regulations are, much less permit, and they’re too busy anyway to stop and try to figure it out. In addition, they’re also too busy to take the time to have meaningful discussions with contractors or wannabe contractors. This regulation, if adopted, will become a field day for bid protests – one little slip-up and you’ve got a bid protest to deal with.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction last week preventing implementation of the Labor’s (the Department of Labor) final rule increasing the executive, administrative, and professional exemption thresholds for overtime pay requirements.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Court Orders Injunction on New Overtime Threshold Rules

A DOE (Department of Energy) contractor and its primary subcontractor have agreed to pay $125 million to settle allegations that they charged the Government for materials and work that did not meet standards required for nuclear facilities and used Government funds to pay for lobbying expenses. Bechtel National will pay $67.5 million and AECOM Energy and Construction Inc. will pay $57.5 million. AECOM, for its part, is a successor in interest to URS Energy and Construction Inc.and maintains that the events leading to the settlement occurred prior to its acquisition of URS. We wonder if this liability was reflected in the purchase price of URS.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Contractors Pay $125 Million to Settle Safety Concerns

Dorado Services protested the award of an Air Force contract for waste collection services to a competitor, GEO International Management. Dorado argued that GEO’s proposal was non-compliant with the solicitation’s subcontracting limitations, making it ineligible for award.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: A Matter for Contract Administration, Not for a Bid Protest