May 22, 2012

Cost Accounting Standards Exemption for Overseas Contracts Eliminated - Effective October 11

On August 10, 2011, the Cost Accounting Standards Board of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy eliminated the existing exemption from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage for contracts executed and performed entirely outside the United States, its territories and possessions. As a result, contractors performing work outside the United States on U.S. government contracts are now subject to complex and possibly costly CAS compliance requirements from which they were previously exempt.

This change, which becomes effective on October 11, 2011, has important implications for both U.S. and non-U.S. companies doing business with the federal government:

  • Agencies such as DOD have noted that most of the activity with the overseas exemption has taken place at the subcontractor level; as a result, both prime and subcontractors on U.S. government contracts should be aware of the effect of this change on foreign subcontractors performing work outside the United States on U.S. government contracts.
  • U.S. and non-U.S. companies with U.S. government prime contracts should verify that relevant clauses such as FAR 52.230-4 (Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices for Contracts Awarded to Foreign Concerns) are flowed down to subcontractors performing work outside the United States. Prime contractors should also take additional steps to protect themselves from liability for the potential CAS violations of foreign subcontractors, such as requiring subcontractor indemnification for the effects of such violations.
  • More generally, because CAS coverage applies to contracts and not to contractors, companies with U.S. government contracts and subcontracts (regardless of place of performance) should carefully review existing contracts as well as solicitations under consideration for the inclusion of FAR 52.230-1 (Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification), which is included in all solicitations for proposed contracts potentially subject to CAS.
  • Companies with CAS-covered contracts may be required to comply with various CAS provisions, including CAS 401 (which relates to consistency in cost estimation and reporting) and CAS 402 (which relates to consistency in allocating costs). Though the CAS Board has described CAS 401 and 402 as “minimal requirements,” they are in fact quite complex, and companies with CAS-covered contracts should plan to examine and possibly revise their accounting practices in order to satisfy these and other CAS requirements.
  • Companies with CAS-covered contracts should be aware of the breadth of CAS applicability. Certain CAS provisions apply to individual CAS-covered contracts of $7.5 million or more (“modified” CAS coverage), while additional provisions apply to individual CAS-covered contracts of $50 million or more or to multiple smaller CAS-covered contracts totaling $50 million (“full” CAS coverage).
  • Contractors and subcontractors should also be aware of the implications of CAS violations. Penalties for CAS 
    violations can include correction of the noncompliance, submission of a description of accounting practice 
    changes necessary for compliance, and adjustment of the contract price or cost allowance.
  • Despite the elimination of this exemption from CAS, additional CAS exemptions remain. Both U.S. and non-U.S. prime contractors and subcontractors should review applicable regulations to determine whether other CAS exemptions may apply.

In issuing this final rule, the CAS Board responds to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which required the CAS Board to review whether the existing CAS exemption for overseas contracts would benefit the government. The CAS Board determined that the statutory basis for the exemption no longer exists, found no accounting basis for the overseas exemption, and foresaw that the application of CAS to overseas contracts would not create hardships for agencies, contractors or subcontractors.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

John Stafford is a Shareholder in the Government Contracts Practice Group in Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C. office. For more than 30 years his practice has focused on federal regulatory law, compliance, administrative proceedings and litigation. Mr. Stafford has wide-ranging experience in public contracts and grants, and related legal and business issues.  He has a broad range of contract-related experience and has counseled and litigated cases on behalf of numerous companies, both large and small, in controversies involving federal and state procurement agencies...

202.331.3109

About the Author

Staff Writer

Caitlin Ginley joined the Center in July 2007 as the University of Delaware’s 10th James R. Soles Fellow. She graduated cum laude in May 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in English and political science, concentrating in journalism. She worked for two years on the editorial staff of the university’s award-winning student newspaper, The Review, and was an intern for Delaware Today magazine and Court TV.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.