Tag Archives: DCAA

DCAA Audits and Small Business Job Cost Accounting

Standard
Image: “Smalltofeds”

“SMALL TO FEDS” By Ken Larson

INTRODUCTION

Small Businesses typically have a learning experience growing into government contracting. Part of that process is undergoing reviews by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). It takes knowledge of the requirements and strategic focus to set up the type of business processes required for accommodating government contract job cost accounting and fit those processes into the way your company does business.

DCAA or other agency representatives do not approve job cost accounting software packages. They approve contractor job cost accounting practices in compliance with Federal Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). If you are a small business, you are probably going to come under modified CAS Coverage that you can read about at the following link:


What is a “Compliant” Federal Government Contracting Small Business System?


Perhaps you have already examined the above background, but I would encourage you to review it again in connection with planning for your business system. Perhaps you have discovered that CAS compliant job cost accounting effects your estimating structure, your long range planning for indirect rates, as well as your general ledger, overhead and G&A structure. You may have discovered as well that DCAA wants to see your government contracts accounted for in a separate cost center from your commercial work and that there are certain unallowable costs that cannot be charged directly or indirectly to government contracts.


PROPOSAL AUDITS


Proposal audits are performed by DCAA on your cost proposal at the request of the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) and verify your direct and indirect rates against your long range plan, your labor category pricing, contingent hire agreements, vendor quotes, subcontractor proposals and all other data related to the cost volume of the proposal. Results go to the PCO. Arithmetic checks are made. No opinion is offered on the merit of the pricing, only that it has been documented in a long-range plan or a vendor or subcontractor quote and it is accurate.


PROGRESS BILLING AUDITS UNDER FIRM, FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS

This type of audit is on live data from your billing system. It is triggered by your submitting a progress payment under a firm, fixed price contract. Progress payments can be allowed in long-running firm, fixed price contracts that are front-end loaded with material and labor investment and have lengthy schedules for delivering the end product.

The DCAA Auditor will get the audit request from the contracting activity and will ask to examine the complete set of job cost records in your accounting system for incurred cost on the fixed price contract and tie those records out to the progress payment requested amount (usually 85-90% of the incurred cost to date – they hold some billed amount in retention). Records audited are at the time card and expense report level, as well as purchase orders, travel vouchers and any other transactions that are booked and billed in your accounting system to the fixed price contract. They will want to see the time cards and other documents and will trace them back through the system.

If you do not have a progress billing clause in your firm, fixed price contract, it is unlikely you will be audited. The contracting activity or the Defense Finance Accounting System (DFAS) will simply compare the final amount you bill to the firm, fixed price amount in your contract and pay if the item or service has been accepted and delivered. (Usually a sign-off by the PCO, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) or a DD Form 250 signed by a government inspector on product deliveries)

COST PLUS AND TIME AND MATERIAL CONTRACT AUDITS


Billing audits are performed by DCAA, again at the request of the contracting activity. The auditor will go into all actual cost records submitted with your billing. Cost plus and T&M billings must have all the billing detail behind them or they will not be paid. The detail must be at the transaction level and the audit is identical to the one discussed above for progress payments.

INCURRED COST AUDITS (OFTEN REFERRED TO AS “RATE AUDITS”


These audits are conducted when you are closing out contracts with the government and they have been billed at provisional rates, or the government needs to establish that you are billing accurately from a rate standpoint. If the contract is fixed price with progress payments, cost plus or Time and Material in nature and has been billed over a long period, particularly if it has crossed more than one government fiscal year, then a system-wide incurred cost audit will be necessary to verify the rates that were charged to the government and determine the difference between the provisional rate billed and the actual rate incurred (where applicable).

In addition it is periodically necessary for the government to establish that no unallowable costs have found their way into government contract billings.


The government allows provisional billing rates for the convenience of the contractor based on his long-range plan and mix of business. The government holds a retention amount on each billing and then at closeout determines with the contractor through an incurred cost audit the final amount due on the contract, releases the retention accordingly, and the contract can then be closed if all other obligations have been completed. At closeout the government pays the final bill.

A rate audit determines the compliance of the job cost system if it occurs while the contract is in process. If an incurred cost audit occurs on contract closeout actions, results will directly impact final contract billing approval and amounts.


JOB COST ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE TOOLS


My experience with job cost accounting software tools is that complete packages are pretty expensive. COTS accounting packages such as Quick Books do not provide job cost accounting. I have installed JAMIS, which is the ‘Cadillac’, DELTEK, which is the ‘Fairlane 500’, and SYMPAQ, which is the ‘Volkswagen’. They are all expensive, even for single user licenses. You can go to these and other product sites on the web and examine their capabilities:


DELTEK


SYMPAQ


JAMIS


Here are some products especially designed for small business:

ICAT


PROCAS


All of the above suppliers are used to long sales cycles and competing against each other. They will do remote demos for you and bend over backwards to show you their products. You can learn much about government contract job cost accounting just by taking the time to go through a demo. For companies whose direct job cost records are growing fast, these tools offer the utility to manage data volume and efficiently handle requirements such as changes to existing records driven by rate changes, fiscal period closing or contract closeout.


GROWING YOUR JOB COST SYSTEM


Many small companies doing government work start out with a rudimentary direct job cost accounting software package such as Peach Tree or the add-on tool for Quick Books mentioned above and crutch it with manually maintained records on spreadsheets for indirect cost allocation, time keeping, expense reporting, purchasing and supplier commitments. There is nothing wrong with such an approach as long as you can supply job cost (individual contract) records complying with modified CAS Coverage and demonstrate such things as:

Time Cards and time keeping process by worker and labor category by contract or indirect cost pool

Expense Reports and expense report process by worker by contract or indirect cost pool

Purchase Orders with job cost accounting data traceable thru invoices to contacts or indirect cost pools after payment

Overhead Allocations in a Government-unique cost center to individual contracts at month end based on individual contract direct labor cost

G and A Allocations in a Government-unique cost center to individual contracts at month end based on individual contract total cost.

A semi-manual approach gets burdensome as the company grows and the number of accounting transactions at the direct and indirect cost level increase in volume.

If you do not have a good job cost software tool, I recommend you begin looking for one and plan strategically to implement it if  significant progress billings and service contracting transactions, to include time and material and cost plus contracts, are in your future. Implementing a government compliant job cost system is a sensitive matter and must be planned. ‘

As companies grow and get involved in larger programs they come under full CAS Coverage that requires a disclosure statement and considerably more controls on the structure of the business system. You can read about full CAS coverage at the link contained in the introduction to this article.


SUMMARY


If you have the investment budget available, you may wish to consider the job cost accounting system software suppliers I mentioned above and compete them against each other for a price. Installing one of these packages is critical from an accounting period standpoint. I recommend a new year starting point and running in parallel on your old system for at least a quarter.

Keep in mind that DCAA does not approve COTS job cost accounting system software. Buying the software will not make you “DCAA Compliant” or “CAS Compliant” You do that through careful process development, specific to your company, utilizing software as a tool to operate your own unique business processes. Your processes will include long range planning, pricing, job cost accounting, indirect cost allocation, time-keeping, expense reporting, purchasing and commitments and billing – all geared to accurate job cost records at the individual contract level.

To the extent that you cannot demonstrate the above features to DCAA when they audit your business you CAN demonstrate that you are aware of the necessity to set these things up, lay out your plan to do so, and specify a time frame within which DCAA can expect to see you complete your compliant government contract pricing and accounting structure.

I have found that DCAA auditors are reasonable people who understand small companies must grow into government business systems. Showing them your accounting structure and your business system plans will display knowledge they will appreciate and assure them you understand the requirements, even if you cannot demonstrate all the processes at the point in time that the government initially audits your company.

Chapters 45 and 51 through 53 of my Book, “Small Business Federal Government Contracting” provides further detail and examples on establishing CAS-Compliant small business planning, pricing and job cost accounting. The book is free as a download in the right margin of the below site in the “Box Net” cube.”

https://www.smalltofeds.com



Pentagon Plans to Triple Audits Amid Surge in Defense Spending

Standard
Image: https://www.smalltofeds.com/2008/02/dcaa-audits-and-small-business-job-cost.html

BLOOMBERG.COM

A surge of defense spending is prompting the Pentagon’s audit agency to triple the number of evaluations it will undertake in order to uncover or prevent unjustified profits based on incomplete, flawed or inaccurate cost data.

The Defense Contract Audit Agency intends to complete as many as 60 Truth In Negotiations Act reviews in the coming fiscal year, compared to about 20 in the year ending Sept. 30.”

______________________________________________________________________________

“According to spokesman Christopher Sherwood. The agency completed 21 such audits in 2018 and 26 in 2017. About half the reviews focused on the top 25 defense contractors.

Efforts to bolster defense spending were aided by Congress’s decision to revise spending caps for the final two years of the 2011 Budget Control Act. That effectively added tens of billions of dollars potential defense spending to the Pentagon budget: $90.3 billion in fiscal year 2020 and $81.3 billion in the following year.

Congress has signaled its concern that the money could be misspent. The staff of Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, as well as investigators for Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, are already reviewing the Pentagon’s enforcement of the law intended to prevent unjustified profits based on incomplete, flawed or inaccurate cost and pricing data for military unique items.

“The committee is investigating whether defense contractors are providing complete and accurate cost data, as required by law,” Cummings said in an emailed statement.

The 1962 Truth In Negotiations Act sought to put government contracting officers on equal footing with company counterparts, requiring firms during negotiations to provide government buyers all the variables that influenced the final price of a product or service unique to the military. They must also legally certify that the information is accurate, complete and current.

The TINA audits are separate from Pentagon reviews that uncover instances of overcharging for basic spare parts such as nuts and pins. Those types of goods are considered “commercial items,” normally exempt from the law’s price data requirements since there is already publicly available data to compare them with.

Fraud Alert

Under the ramped up audit policy, the number of “work years,” or time devoted to compiling compliance audits, will increase by approximately 500%, Sherwood said.

Previous reviews show there’s reason to be concerned. As an example, Shay Assad, the Pentagon’s former director of defense pricing and contracting, said evaluations during his tenure showed that essentially 100% of the contracts examined at one top-25 defense contractor had suspect pricing.

“If one looks deep enough there is some element of fraud typically lurking,” he said.

Sherwood said the contracts most prone to significant risk of “excess profits” are large, firm-fixed price types. In 2015, the audit agency formed a specialized, 20-person unit to handle reviews of “high-risk” contracts.

Based on initial reviews commissioned before the team was formed, Assad said in a written statement that “it became obvious to us that we needed to step up defective pricing review efforts.”

80% Profits

“In a number of cases we expected profit outcomes of 12% to 15%,” Assad said, but they found levels of between 25% and 80% on some sole-source weapons contracts. “That does not happen by outstanding performance” but by faulty contractor cost estimating “or in the worst case, fraud,” he added. Assad retired this year.

Since 2015, the unit has conducted audits on 108 high-risk contracts totaling $74 billion. Of those, 79 — or nearly 75% — uncovered potential defective pricing of $589 million that could eventually translate into contractor repayments after the contested charges go through a negotiations process.

“If both parties arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement, the contractor will make a payment to the government,” Sherwood said. But if not, the government’s principal negotiator “issues a demand for payment, at which point the contractor may elect to make the payment or pursue legal action,” he added.

In that same period, the audit agency has referred 10 compliance audits with “suspected irregular conduct” to the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service. Eight of those 10 have resulted in active cases, Sherwood said.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-13/pentagon-plans-to-triple-audits-amid-surge-in-defense-spending

Letting Government Contractors Pick Their Own Auditors is a Bad Idea

Standard

Hand in Jar istockphoto by Getty

Image: istock photo by Getty

“THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT”

“The law in question is the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed late last year.

When it comes to contract auditing, giving audit responsibilities to a company working directly for a contractor hampers the government’s ability to negotiate good deals for taxpayers.

Section 820 of the law states that “contractors with the Department of Defense may present, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency shall accept without performing additional audits, a summary of audit findings prepared by a commercial auditor” of contractors’ indirect costs (with some exceptions). This section is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2018.

Last year, in annual legislation setting defense policy, Congress gave military contractors the authority to hire their own auditors to review the bills those contractors send to the government. For decades, the Pentagon’s own Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has helped government contracting officials negotiate better deals by examining a contractor’s charges. But last year’s legislation, which goes into effect next year, diminishes the DCAA’s oversight authority to the detriment of taxpayers.

The topic was broached in an important, but under-the-radar Congressional oversight hearing in April.

Most of the hearing centered on the cost of government versus private auditors, with two conflicting tales being told. But a bigger issue went largely unaddressed: whether allowing contractors to pick their own auditors creates inherent conflicts of interest since the auditors would be in the position of serving contractors—their client—rather than taxpayers. There is a reasonable fear that these private sector auditors, in an effort to keep their client happy and win repeat business, would be reluctant to disclose to the government that the contractor is overcharging taxpayers.

New legislation pending before Congress would rescind Section 820, but it would also allow “contractors to engage commercial auditors to perform incurred cost audits,” according to a Department of Defense (DoD) analysis. The analysis also states that the new provision creates “several unintended consequences that will negatively impact the Department and industry.” The DoD opposes both Section 820 and the new Congressional language. The DoD’s proposed alternative keeps the power to conduct these audits in DCAA’s hands with an option allowing the government (rather than the contractors) to hire private sector auditors on a case-by-case basis. After analyzing the issue, POGO supports the Department’s proposed alternative.

DCAA’s Role

DCAA is responsible for auditing the financial side of certain defense contracts to “ensure that warfighters get what they need at fair and reasonable prices,” according to  its website. DCAA looks for whether contractor costs are “allowable, allocable, and reasonable,” and it performs other audits to ensure contractors have adequate business and accounting systems and adhere to federal cost and accounting principles. DCAA’s report for fiscal year 2016 notes that it audited $287 billion in contract costs that year. These audits are not usually intended to uncover fraud, although DCAA sometimes finds indicators of criminal activity and participates in law enforcement investigations.

What Are “Indirect Costs” and Why Do They Matter?

Contractors charge the government for two types of costs: direct costs that specifically relate to the contract, such as labor and materials, and indirect costs that exist apart from specific work on the contract, such as the rent a contractor pays for its office or fringe benefits for employees.

But there’s nothing fringe about these costs. Within incurred cost audits, indirect costs make up the majority of all questioned costs, according to DCAA Director Anita Bales. Because they are less clear-cut than direct audits, audits of indirect costs can be contentious—especially when auditors want more access to contractor information than the contractor is willing to provide—and quite technical. For instance, contractors are allowed to charge the government for indirect costs associated with litigation under some circumstances, but not in other situations. Contractors can easily pad their profits at taxpayers’ expense if these costs are not carefully examined.

An example of indirect cost overbilling made the news in February 2016 when the Justice Department announced that Centerra Services International (formerly known as Wackenhut Services LLC) agreed to pay $7.4 million to resolve a whistleblower lawsuit alleging the company had defrauded taxpayers. According to the Justice Department, Centerra double billed its labor costs while providing firefighting services on a military base in Iraq. The government alleged Centerra “inflated its labor costs by billing the salaries of certain managers as direct costs under the subcontract, when those salaries had already been charged as indirect costs.”

The Centerra case isn’t a one-off. In 2015, a DCAA audit questioned $14.6 million in costs that a contractor charged the government, according to a DoD Inspector General report to Congress. The vast majority—$14 million—involved wrongly billed indirect costs.

Lessons from the Recent Past

We don’t have to look very far back in history to see that allowing profit-motivated companies to hire their own profit-motivated auditors can lead to problems.

The Enron scandal showed that accountants and auditors aren’t immune from conflicts of interest. “Obviously the history of Enron and the financial crisis suggest we have to be very careful in this situation,” Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee said during his opening statement at the April hearing. Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, had conflicts of interest. It was simultaneously employed as internal and external auditor, meaning that the supposedly independent external auditor could cover up the inaccuracies of the internal audit team.

More recently, during the fallout of the Great Recession, the government required banks to conduct mortgage foreclosure reviews. Banks were allowed to hire for those reviews their own “independent consultants” who proved to be not so independent. The New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) punished several of these consultants, including Promontory Financial Group, Deloitte, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, for “misconduct, violations of law, and lack of autonomy.” Settlements generally included multi-million dollar fines and temporary bans from consulting.

“A consultant’s allegiance too often goes to the client that pays the bills,” former NYDFS General Counsel Daniel Alter wrote in a 2015 piece for American Banker. Laws like Sarbanes-Oxley, which create criminal liability for misrepresenting financial statements, have helped to prevent future Enrons by balancing that pressure. However, criminal liability doesn’t apply to other types of financial reporting, such as the consulting work done in the aftermath of the housing crisis and the proposed contract audits.

Counting the Costs  

At the April Congressional hearing, DCAA Director Anita Bales testified that third-party auditors would cost an estimated 30 percent more than DCAA auditors. David Berteau, President and CEO of the Professional Services Council, a contractor lobbying group, countered in his testimony that when civilian agencies have used private auditors, they have in some cases paid significantly less than they used to pay DCAA.

Bales’ claim that DCAA auditors were 30 percent cheaper was based on a comparison of hourly billing rates, according to emails provided to POGO through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Berteau and other employees of the Professional Services Council did not respond to emails requesting evidence supporting their claims.

Other members of the federal auditing community have told POGO that the comparison of auditing costs is not clear cut. DCAA has more specialized experience and might charge lower costs per auditor hour, but they may also take longer to conduct audits (which may be a good thing in the long run, as more thorough audits may save even more money). Pricing for private auditors can also vary widely from company to company and even year to year, making a comprehensive analysis difficult.

And although cost was the most-discussed factor at the hearing, it isn’t the only factor that needs to be examined. A federal source, not authorized to speak on the record, who is familiar with both DCAA and private contract audits for civilian agencies said the work of private auditors still has to be closely checked, even when they are hired directly by the government. Both last year’s NDAA and a recent proposal for this year’s NDAA prohibit DCAA from examining the work of private auditors before accepting the results.

There is also concern over how the records generated by private auditors would be handled: Will they be subject to FOIA? How would the discovery of potential fraud be handled? Would private sector audits be incorporated into the DCAA’s “Management Information System” that tracks audit data so that auditors can spot trends and look at the bigger picture?

What About Incurred Costs?

New Congressional language would rescind Section 820 but would allow contractors to hire auditors to audit incurred costs. The argument for this is DCAA’s lower rate of return when it audits incurred costs. However, DCAA’s other auditing work with the same contractor and on the same contracts benefits from its incurred cost audits, and vice-versa. For instance, DCAA conducts audits of contractors’ billing, accounts, and internal control systems. The insights DCAA gains from those audits assists DCAA when it audits a contractor’s incurred costs. According to a DoD analysis of the impacts of the recently proposed legislation, keeping incurred cost audits in the hands of DCAA:

…allows for the continuation of many initiatives that DCAA has put in place to more efficiently and effectively perform audits (e.g., the use of the low risk sampling process, the coordination of subcontract assist audits, and the process for obtaining and determining adequacy of incurred cost proposals). Without one group coordinating the need for commercial auditors, the Department will lose many of these efficiencies and will lose adequate oversight over the complete incurred cost audit process. [emphasis added]

One of the primary motivations for the new Congressional language on incurred cost audits is DCAA’s incurred cost audit backlog, which was relatively large until a few years ago and has recently become more manageable according to DCAA’s most recent annual report. The agency said it was on track to eliminate the backlog by next year, although with the hiring freeze it may have to re-evaluate that goal. Regardless of whether the backlog is eliminated one or three or even five years from now, Congress is proposing a rather drastic solution to a problem that is no longer drastic itself.

This is not a backyard experiment with few consequences for failure. Billions of taxpayer dollars are on the line every year. While DCAA has room for improvement, privatizing the agency’s work would most likely make it harder to crack down on contractor overbilling.

Given the large risks and the unclear benefits or privatizing contract audits, Section 820 should be repealed. If DCAA needs a temporary boost, it should be given authority to hire more staff on a temporary basis, or perhaps even hire private sector auditors on a short-term basis. The Defense Department proposes the latter, calling it “much more effective” while ensuring “that a function that is inherently governmental in nature continues to be performed by Government auditors when feasible, but allows for the use of commercial auditors when necessary to address incurred cost backlog.”

POGO does not often agree with the Defense Department, but its proposal makes sense. Let’s learn from our past mistakes rather than repeat them.”

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/06/letting-contractors-pick-own-auditors-bad-idea.html