In its recent decision, Cellular Materials International, Inc., ASBCA No. 61408 (Dec. 27, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) observed that whether a cost has been “incurred” for purposes of claiming allowable costs under FAR 52.216-7 is a fact-intensive inquiry.
Pursuant to its Government contract requirements, Cellular Materials International, Inc. (“CMI”)
In a recent alert, we highlighted VS2 v. U.S., in which the Court of Federal Claims refused to expand the Federal Circuit’s Blue & Gold waiver doctrine and required the Army to consider performance risk in a cost realism evaluation. In a new “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor, we
n Ultra Electronic Ocean Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 62804 (June 17, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) held that a contracting officer’s letter terminating the contract for default “effective immediately” constituted a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision for the purpose of granting the Board jurisdiction over the contractor’s appeal.
In Ultra
On December 9, 2020, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) released its Audit of Department of Defense Implementation of Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The audit assesses the DoD’s issuance of relief under Section 3610, which authorizes certain agencies to reimburse contractors for any
On September 30, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum titled “Delegation of Defective Pricing Authority to the Defense Contract Management Agency,” describing DCMA’s new, enhanced role in TINA audits and subsequent disputes. The memo states that DCMA has created a “Defective Pricing Pilot Team,” which
On August 10, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the government’s jurisdictional and waiver defenses in The Boeing Co. v. United States, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) for examination of Boeing’s substantive claim that FAR 30.606 illegally barred the Contracting Officer from
Partner Nicole Owren-Wiest discusses Independent Public Accountants on an episode of Baker Tilly’s Fed Talks podcast. The episode covers questions about how IPAs are utilized in the government contractor space, how contractors have reacted to the use of IPAs, and how IPAs are expected to be utilized going forward. Access the podcast below.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) recently made public its Fiscal Year 2017 Report to Congress, which, among other things, provides an update on incurred cost audits. Specifically, the report explains that DCAA:
Continue Reading The End is Near: DCAA Projects End of Incurred Cost Backlog by FY 2018
Contractors looking for updates to the statutory allowable cost limits on employee compensation may be looking in the wrong place. But what was once lost can easily be found, at least for the moment, by simply navigating to a different website.
The Cost Principles and the Compensation Cap
FAR 31.205-6(p)(4) governs the allowable compensation of contractor and subcontractor employees. It promulgates section 702 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (“BBA”), which set an initial limit on allowable contractor and subcontractor employee compensation costs at $487,000 per year. “Compensation” is defined broadly to include the total amount of wages, salary, bonuses, deferred compensation, and employer contributions to defined contribution pension plans. According to the BBA, the cap is to be adjusted annually based on the Employment Cost Index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BBA repealed the prior existing formula for determining the relevant compensation cap under 41 U.S.C. § 1127 and applies to contracts awarded on or after June 24, 2014. It also provided agencies with the authority to establish “one or more narrowly targeted exceptions” for certain specialists.
Continue Reading Hidden in Plain Sight: Where, Oh Where, Have the Compensation Caps Gone?
On March 1, the President announced his intention to impose tariffs of 25% on all imported steel and 10% on all imported aluminum. A more formal announcement of the tariffs is expected in the coming week and, while many might have been surprised by the timing of the President’s initial statement, it came after a 10-month process of investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce, culminating with its January 2018 recommendation for tariffs or quotas to protect U.S. producers. The Commerce Department reports are available here and here.
When finalized, these tariffs could have significant impacts on contractors across a range of industries, increasing costs of performance and restricting available supply. Domestic prices are expected to rise, and foreign suppliers may turn their focus to other markets. Supply disruptions are possible, particularly in the short term. To protect themselves, federal contractors who manufacture or use products with steel or aluminum should examine existing contracts, re-evaluate bids being developed, and consider revisions to standard contract terms.
Continue Reading Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Recovery and Risk Reduction for Federal Contractors