May 22, 2012

Defense Contract Management Agency "DCMA" Updates Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation Policy

On January 11, 2011, Ronald Youngs, Acting Executive Director, Contracts, Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”), issued Information Memorandum No. 11-108 regarding Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (“FPRR”). This memorandum implemented a mandate included in the September 14, 2010 memorandum of Ashton B. Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, entitled “Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending.” In an attempt to reduce the overlap between DCMA and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), Mr. Carter directed that “where DCAA has completed an audit of a particular contractor’s [Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (“FPRP”)], DCMA shall adopt the DCAA recommended rates as the Department’s position regarding those rates.”
 

To implement this requirement, DCMA has updated its policy regarding FPRR development as follows:
 

  • When a contractor submits a new FPRP, the Administrative Contracting Officer (“ACO”) will review the proposal and may issue a new FPRR according to the guidelines in Paragraph 6 of the FPR Instruction (discussing the development of pre-negotiation objectives). After issuing a new FPRR, the ACO will inform DCAA of any new information that may impact the rates or the FPRP audit. If the FPRP has significant changes that require a new audit, DCMA will issue a FPRR pending receipt of the audit report. 
     
  • If the DCAA approves of the FPRP, the ACO will review the DCAA audit report with 5 days of receipt, and adopt the DCAA approved rates immediately thereafter.
     
  • If the DCAA finds the FPRP problematic, the ACO and DCAA will work together to obtain data from the contractor concerning any unsupported costs. The ACO will also provide DCAA with a written opinion concerning these costs to accompany the FPRR memorandum. 
     
  • In the “rare circumstances” where the ACO notes significant deficiencies in the audit report, the ACO will immediately contact DCAA to coordinate a revision to the recommended rates. If the ACO and DCAA cannot resolve these deficiencies, the issue will be elevated to the Contract Management Board of Review.
     
  • The ACO will continuously monitor the validity of all recommended rates, and where the ACO determines that the current rates require revision, the ACO and DCAA will determine the rate impact prior to issuing a new FPRR.

In sum, the authority of DCAA is now paramount in the establishment of FPRRs where DCMA serves as the contract administration office.[1] This clearly continues the ongoing diminishment in the discretion and prerogatives of contracting officers, who now are reduced to “rubber stamping” DCAA’s determinations. After all, DOD has already determined, has it not, that it will be the “rare circumstance” in which DCAA commits an error in its audit report? And how many contracting officers are going to be willing to take on DCAA in the face of that predetermination?

At this juncture, one is left to question, quite frankly, the value of dialogue between contractors and their ACOs in the realm of pricing. Contractors and contracting officers once were able to “reason together” to resolve differences on pricing issues. But as Chad and Jeremy sang some four decades ago, “that was yesterday, and yesterday’s gone.”

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

John Chierichella is a partner in the Government Contracts and Regulated Industries Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

202-218-6878

About the Author

Associate

Mr. Roberts is an associate in the Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

202-469-4945

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.