DCAA | The Contracting Education Academy

November 28, 2019 By cs

Federal Circuit issues controversial decision involving expressly unallowable costs

In its second significant cost allowability decision of the year, the Federal Circuit held that salaries associated with lobbying activities are expressly unallowable under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.205-22.

Although the decision is limited to salary costs associated with lobbying activities, its rationale creates uncertainty for other types of costs subject to a FAR Part 31 Cost Principle that uses similar “associated with” language. Contractors should anticipate closer scrutiny from auditors, who may feel emboldened by the Federal Circuit’s decision to characterize costs as expressly unallowable. The decision may also have implications for compliance with Cost Accounting Standard 405.

Although many types of cost may be generally unallowable, a smaller subset of costs are expressly unallowable. An expressly unallowable costs is “a particular item or type of cost which, under the express provisions of an applicable law, regulation, or contract, is specifically named and stated to be unallowable.” Contractors are subject to penalty if they submit to the government any expressly unallowable cost. Congress made clear that the penalty was intended for limited circumstances where the regulations explicitly prohibit inclusion of a type of cost; providing alcohol as an example.

FAR 31.205-22(a) provides that costs “associated with” a list of lobbying and political activities are unallowable. FAR 31.205-22 does not specifically name and state salary, or any other type of cost; it merely states “associated with.” The narrow question presented to the Federal Circuit was whether salary costs of employees engaging in such lobbying activity qualify as expressly unallowable costs.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/860020/

December 12, 2018 By AMK

Oversight of U.S. military’s food suppliers called into question after fraud indictment

Executives from a company responsible for providing food and water for deployed U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been charged with defrauding the government and creating a fake construction site to overstate progress on an $8 billion contract, the Justice Department said in a recently filed indictment.

The allegations came four years after the company’s predecessor pleaded guilty to criminal charges that it inflated prices for basic items that it sold to the U.S. military. Both cases emphasize how the U.S. military has struggled to curb abuses of U.S. defense spending in America’s longest-running foreign war as the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan enters its 17th year, analysts said.

On Nov. 27, the Justice Department charged Abdul Huda Farouki, Mazen Farouki and Salah Maarouf — three Virginia residents who worked with a Dubai-based company called Anham Fzco — with defrauding the U.S. military under an estimated $8 billion military supply contract.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/08/oversight-us-militarys-food-suppliers-called-into-question-after-fraud-indictment/

November 16, 2018 By AMK

Captain from Georgia is latest Navy officer caught in ‘Fat Leonard’ corruption

The 350-pound Leonard Glenn Francis — known in Navy circles as “Leonard the Legend” for his wild-side lifestyle — spent decades cultivating relationships with Navy officers, many of whom developed a blind spot to his fraudulent ways. In the past three years, 33 defendants have been charged and 22 have pleaded guilty, many admitting to accepting things of value from Francis — also known as “Fat Leonard” — in exchange for helping the contractor win and maintain contracts and overbill the Navy by millions of dollars.

On Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2018, another Navy captain pleaded guilty to criminal conflict of interest charges and a former Navy master chief was sentenced to 17 months in prison today on corruption charges. The defendants are among the latest U.S. Navy officials to plead guilty and be sentenced in the expansive corruption and fraud investigation involving foreign defense contractor “Fat Leonard” Francis and his Singapore-based ship husbanding company, Glenn Defense Marine Asia (GDMA).

Jeffrey Breslau of Cumming, Georgia pleaded guilty to one count of criminal conflict of interest before U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California. Breslau was charged in September 2018. Retired Master Chief Ricarte Icmat David of Concepcion, Tarlac, Philippines, was sentenced by Judge Sammartino, who also ordered him to serve a year of supervised release and pay restitution of $30,000. David was charged in August 2018 and pleaded guilty in September to one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud.

According to admissions made as part of his guilty plea, from October 2009 until July 2012, Breslau was a captain in the U.S. Navy assigned as director of public affairs for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As part of his duties, Breslau was involved in devising the Navy’s public affairs communications strategy, and provided public affairs guidance to Pacific Fleet components and other Navy commands. From August 2012 until July 2014, Breslau was assigned to the commanding officer for the Joint Public Affairs Support Element in Norfolk, Virginia, where he was responsible for leading joint crisis communications teams.

Breslau admitted that from March 2012 until September 2013, while serving in the Navy, he provided Francis with public relations consulting services, including providing advice on how to respond to issues and controversies related to Francis’s ship husbanding business with the Navy. These included issues related to port visit costs, allegations of malfeasance such as the unauthorized dumping of waste, disputes with competitors, and issues with Pacific Fleet and contracting personnel. During the course of his consulting agreement with Francis, Breslau authored, reviewed or edited at least 33 separate documents; authored at least 135 emails providing advice to Francis; provided at least 14 instances of “talking points” in advance of meetings between Francis and high ranking Navy personnel; and “ghostwrote” numerous emails on Francis’s behalf to be transmitted to Navy personnel. During the course of this consulting agreement, Francis paid Breslau approximately $65,000 without Breslau disclosing the agreement to the Navy, Breslau admitted.

As part of his guilty plea, David admitted that he was assigned various logistics positions with the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, including with the Fleet Industrial Supply Center in Yokosuka, Japan from June 2001 to July 2004; on the USS Essex from July 2004 to August 2007; on the USS Kitty Hawk from September 2007 to August 2008; and on the USS George Washington from September 2008 to July 2010. In these positions, David was responsible for ordering and verifying goods and services for the ships on which he served, including from contractors during port calls. Throughout this period, David received from Francis various things of value, including five star hotel rooms during every port visit, he admitted.

David further admitted that he repeatedly facilitated fraud by allowing Francis and GDMA to inflate the husbanding invoices to bill for services never rendered. For example, David instructed Francis to inflate invoices for the USS Essex’s anticipated November 2007 port visit to the Philippines. As David transitioned to a new position aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, on or about May 8, 2008, Francis’s company paid approximately 84,637.00 Hong Kong Dollars (HKD) for hotel reservations at the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong for Navy personnel assigned to the USS Kitty Hawk including 10,396 HKD for David’s four-night stay in a Harbor View Room, David admitted.

Francis pleaded guilty in 2015 to bribery and fraud charges, admitting that he presided over a massive, decade-long conspiracy involving “scores” of U.S. Navy officials, tens of millions of dollars in fraud and millions of dollars in bribes and lavish gifts, including luxury travel, airline upgrades, five-star hotel accommodations, top-shelf alcohol, the services of prostitutes, Cuban cigars, Kobe beef and Spanish suckling pigs.

The case was investigated by DCIS, NCIS and the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

For earlier reports on this scandal, see: https://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/?s=fat

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-us-navy-captain-pleads-guilty-and-former-master-chief-petty-officer-sentenced-sweeping

October 22, 2018 By AMK

Defense acquisition workers seeing a new era in training

The Defense acquisition workforce may see a new era in training, recruiting and retainment as the Pentagon and military services change the way they view the value of their employees.

Both the Army and the Defense Department are making changes in how they evaluate and prioritize the experience and education of the acquisition workforce.

The Army recently released a directive focused on acquisition talent management.

“We want our people to have an appropriate set of experiences,” acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said of the directive during a speech this week at an Association of the United States Army conference in Washington. “We want our program managers and officers to have fellowships with industry, masters degrees within certain disciplines. It’s also about the tenures for people in program management. We’re looking at tours of three-to-four years, so more continuity and the right set of experiences so that they have a broader perspective than the ones we’ve had previously.”

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2017/10/defense-acquisition-workers-seeing-a-new-era-in-training/

October 5, 2018 By AMK

ASBCA does not bar government claim to disallow contractor’s direct costs paid 11 years earlier

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently held in DRS Global Enterprise Solutions, Inc. that the government’s 2017 claim disallowing fiscal year 2006 direct costs was not necessarily time-barred by the Contract Disputes Act’s (CDA) six-year statute of limitations.

The DRS decision is another in a line of statute of limitations cases that tend to enable the government’s practice of conducting untimely audits and subsequently asserting stale cost disallowance claims.

In September 2017, the government issued DRS a contracting officer’s final decision disallowing approximately $8 million of direct costs incurred in fiscal year 2006. DRS moved for summary judgment, arguing that undisputed facts establish that the government’s claim accrued more than six years before the final decision was issued and, therefore, the claim was time-barred by the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations. DRS set forth three alternative arguments for the date the government’s claim accrued. The ASBCA rejected all of these arguments.

First, DRS argued that the government’s claim for unallowable direct costs accrued no later than December 15, 2006, when the last voucher for the costs was paid. The ASBCA, citing to its prior precedent, stated that there is no “blanket rule” providing that the statute of limitations begins to run when the government pays a voucher or invoice. The ASBCA also distinguished its contrary holding in Spartan DeLeon Springs, LLC, ASBCA No. 60416, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,601, from the facts of this case noting that, unlike in Spartan DeLeon Springs, DRS was not able to offer undisputed facts demonstrating that DRS’s vouchers contained sufficient information concerning the government’s potential claim.
Second, DRS argued that the government’s claim accrued no later than March 31, 2008, when DRS submitted its final indirect cost rate proposal containing the costs at issue. The ASBCA rejected this argument because the undisputed facts did not support that the final indirect cost rate proposal information addressed the specific bases for the government’s disallowance claim and, thus, DRS failed to establish that the government’s potential cost disallowance claim was “reasonably knowable.”
Finally, DRS argued that the government’s claim accrued no later than July 17, 2009, the date of the Defense Contract Audit Agency entrance conference. The ASBCA rejected this argument as well, reasoning that there was nothing in the undisputed record establishing that the auditor should have been aware of the government’s potential claim at the time of the entrance conference. In sum, the ASBCA found that DRS failed to offer sufficient undisputed facts to supports its positions.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=737536

In its second significant cost allowability decision of the year, the Federal Circuit held that salaries associated with lobbying activities are expressly unallowable under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.205-22.

The Defense acquisition workforce may see a new era in training, recruiting and retainment as the Pentagon and military services change the way they view the value of their employees.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently held in DRS Global Enterprise Solutions, Inc. that the government’s 2017 claim disallowing fiscal year 2006 direct costs was not necessarily time-barred by the Contract Disputes Act’s (CDA) six-year statute of limitations.

Search this Website