CPAs and Advisors with Your Growth in Mind

GAO Denies Bid Protest

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has denied a bid protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as unacceptable because the protester did not demonstrate that it had an accounting system that had been approved by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”). The National Security Agency (“NSA”) issued a small business set aside Request for Proposal for business, engineering, information technology, operations, and training support services. One of the evaluation subfactors was that offerors have an accounting system “that has been deemed acceptable for award by a [Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)] audit at the time of proposal submission. Read More.

Topics: , , ,

Proposed Rule: Opening the Dialogue for Government and Industry to Play Friendly

On November 29, 2016, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration proposed an amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). The purpose of this amendment is to clear misconceptions regarding the responsibilities of communication between government and industry during the acquisition process. By adding more explicit language to the FAR, the agencies involved hope to create more effective communication between government and industry. So what is the potential impact on regulation? FAR part 1.102-2 dictates the “performance standards” placed on private industry in the acquisition process. This rule proposes to amend FAR 1.102-2(a)(4) of. Read More.

Topics: , , , ,

Episode 1: Manufacturing and Production Engineering Costs vs. Independent Research & Development Costs

For companies that incur manufacturing, production line, engineering or product development costs, determining the true nature of the cost can be difficult. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) points us to FAR 31.205-25 — Manufacturing and Production Engineering Cost, to help companies determine if the cost incurred should be considered a manufacturing and production engineering cost. However, the issue companies have is where one draws the line if the costs should actually be considered independent research & development (“IR&D”). Determining if the costs falls under FAR 31.205-25 or meets the definition of FAR 31.205-18 and is considered IR&D doesn’t just impact. Read More.

Topics: , , , , ,

The Auditor Strikes Back: Updated Cost Allowability Guidance Published by DCAA

During late summer, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) published a “Selected Areas of Cost” guidebook to replace Chapter 7 of the DCAA Contract Audit Manual (“CAM”). The newly refreshed guidebook provides further direction for auditors and contractors on how to properly treat certain types of costs listed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 31.2 regarding allowability. Specifically, an unlucky 13 areas of costs have been updated with additional guidance. Those costs include: Bonus and Incentive Compensation Joint Ventures and Teaming Arrangements Depreciation Insurance IR&D/B&P Idle Facilities and Idle Capacity Legal Patents Royalties Consultants Pensions Alcoholic Beverages Manufacturing and Production Engineering. Read More.

Topics: , , ,

The “How-To” for Defining Profit or Fee in DoD Price Proposals

A common question many contractors may find themselves asking: “How are we going to determine and bid profit/fee percentages to be applied in a proposal?” As always, each individual contractor has the right to determine the amount of applied profit/fee they want to bid for each contract. Dependent upon work scope, products/services offered, and even contract type, the risk is different and the competition providing proposals to the end users can vary greatly without going over statutory limitations. Contractors can utilize the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) Weighted Guidelines approach as a tool in determining their profit negotiation position,. Read More.

Topics: , , ,

Q&A: Lost in Time – The Statute of Limitation and Time Limits on Government Contracts

Approximately a year ago, we included an article in our newsletter concerning the six-year statute of limitations (“SOL”) on the assertion of claims under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). This is an area of continuing confusion because it is still developing. In addition to the CDA six-year period, there are other time limits on government contractor actions in regard to government contracts. In a question-and-answer format, this blog will attempt to clarify some of the questions regarding the CDA six-year SOL and other timeliness issues. Q: Does a claim have to be for money? A: No. A claim can be. Read More.

Topics: , ,