Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Alexandra Barbee-Garrett

On August 18, 2020, the Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued updated guidance regarding contractor and subcontractor reimbursement of paid leave costs under the CARES Act § 3610, including two key Class Deviations, both effective immediately. First, it issued Revision 1 to Class Deviation 2020-O0013, which revises and supersedes the original class deviation (issued April 8, 2020) to FAR 31 and DFARS 231, which added a new cost principle, DFARS 231.205-79, “CARES Act Section 3610 – Implementation,” governing the allowability of paid leave costs under § 3610. Second, it issued Class Deviation 2020-O0021, which establishes guidance for contracting officers to follow when reviewing and processing § 3610 requests for reimbursement, including detailed checklists that describe the cost and other information contractors should provide with their requests. It also establishes a new contract clause, DFARS 252.243-7999, “Section 3610 Reimbursement Requests,” to be used to reimburse approved costs. Together, these class deviations revise, clarify, and amplify the earlier version of Class Deviation 2020-O0013, which we discussed here.

Notably, the revision of Class Deviation 2020-O0013 shortens the period for which the cost of paid leave related to COVID-19 is allowable under DFARS 231.205-79 from January 31, 2020 through September 30, 2020, to March 27, 2020 through September 30, 2020. The revision explains that March 27, 2020 was the date the CARES Act was enacted into law and it did not provide for retroactive coverage. The guidance and the DPC’s updated Frequently Asked Questions make clear, however, that contracting officers may still reimburse the cost of paid leave provided between January 31, 2020 and March 27, 2020, if allowable under other contracting authorities (i.e., other than § 3610).

Class Deviation 2020-O0021 establishes structured processes for contractors and contracting officers to follow when making and reviewing such requests, including an “abbreviated” process for reimbursement requests under a single contract below $2 million; a “multipurpose reimbursement” process for requests related to a single contract or multiple “homogeneous groups of contracts,” such as contracts for a single program or with a single contracting activity or DoD Component; and a “global reimbursement” process for requests that seek reimbursement at a business unit or segment level, which should be submitted to the contractor’s assigned Cognizant Federal Agency Official.

The new guidance also addresses procedures for subcontractor requests, whether as part of a prime contractor’s own request or as a pass-through. All subcontractor requests are to be submitted to the prime and should include the same supporting information and documentation that is required from the prime contractor. Although the subcontractor must provide at least the amount of its request to the prime (for submission to the contracting officer), the subcontractor may submit all other supporting information directly to the contracting officer under separate cover. The guidance states that the prime contractor should evaluate its subcontractor’s submission and provide, with its own request, an opinion regarding the subcontractor’s eligibility as an “affected contractor.”

Following submission of a request, the contracting officer will determine, in writing, if the contractor is an “affected contractor,” the reimbursement amount, and the amount of funds available using the provided template Memorandum for Record. The contracting officer shall modify the affected contract(s) to provide for reimbursement through a bilateral modification that includes the new clause DFARS 252.243-7999 Section 3610 Reimbursement. (DEVIATION 2020-O0021). The clause requires contractors who receive any other relief specifically identified with the COVID-19 pandemic, such as credits or PPP loan forgiveness, to notify their contracting officer within 30 days, and to agree to a reduction in the reimbursement by the same amount received by other means up to the entire amount reimbursed under § 3610.

Although these processes are only guidance and contracting officers have discretion to tailor these processes to fit specific circumstances, contractors should expect contracting officers to hew closely to these processes and be prepared to provide the types of detailed cost and other information identified in the “checklists,” which apply to all contract types, including for commercial items.

The DPC also issued guidance regarding implementation of these deviations in connection with Other Transaction Authority Agreements. Crowell & Moring is continuing to monitor these developments.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Nicole Owren-Wiest Nicole Owren-Wiest

Nicole Owren-Wiest is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Nicole is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts and a recognized leader in two of the most…

Nicole Owren-Wiest is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Nicole is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts and a recognized leader in two of the most complex areas in government contracting: accounting, cost, and pricing, and intellectual property/data rights. With over 20 years’ experience, Nicole has a broad counseling and dispute-resolution practice and leads the Group’s cost accounting practice, which focuses on helping clients navigate the government’s complex cost and pricing rules, including the FAR Part 31 cost principles, the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), and Truth in Negotiations Act/Truthful Cost or Pricing Data (defective pricing).

Photo of J. Chris Haile J. Chris Haile

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example…

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example, Mr. Haile has represented clients in matters involving the government’s breach of contract, claims for contract changes, termination for default, termination for convenience, Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) compliance and defective pricing, commercial-item procurement, contract negotiations, and bid protests. He also represents clients in other related matters, such as investigations and audits by government agencies or inspectors general (IGs), False Claims Act / qui tam relator suits, and disclosures to the U.S. Government.

Photo of Skye Mathieson Skye Mathieson

Skye Mathieson is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability…

Skye Mathieson is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability issues, defective pricing, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, bid protests, internal investigations, and responding to DCAA audits. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Skye spent several years as a trial attorney at the procurement litigation division of the Air Force Headquarters for Legal Operations, where he pioneered the seminal “Laguna Defense” that is now widely raised and litigated at the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Photo of Alexandra Barbee-Garrett Alexandra Barbee-Garrett

Alexandra Barbee-Garrett is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where she practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Alex represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. Her practice includes bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S.

Alexandra Barbee-Garrett is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where she practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Alex represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. Her practice includes bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alex’s practice also focuses on federal regulatory compliance, mandatory disclosures to the government, contract disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), prime-sub disputes, and False Claims Act and internal investigations.

Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Alex was a law clerk to Judge Richard A. Hertling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and a government contracts associate at another large law firm. Alex graduated honors from The George Washington University Law School, where she was an articles editor of The Public Contract Law Journal. Alex won the 2015 Government Contracts Moot Court Competition and served as chair for the 2016 competition. Prior to law school, Alex worked as a health care legislative assistant for Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) in the U.S. House of Representatives. She received her B.A. in international studies and anthropology from the University of Washington.