Audits

Subscribe to Audits via RSS

“Ding ding.” – Apollo Creed,
Rocky III

September 30. All (most?) federal years end the same way, at least on paper—like a prizefight, with the clock ticking down; an agitated, uncertain crowd; a lot of money on the table; and a ref capable of stopping the match at any moment. This year will be at once both no different and a completely different beast. With ever-recent uncertainty surrounding appropriations, continuing-resolution (CR) risk, evolving Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) language, the tightening screws of cyber attestations, industry supply-chain and acquisition changes, and grant closeouts that always take longer than you’d think, September is not a month for contractor improvisation. It’s a month when a dedicated corner team, a game plan, and crisp execution all are paramount.Continue Reading And in This Corner … the Sweet Science of Federal Contracting’s Year-End

On April 15, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) released official guidance on Organizationally Defined Parameters (ODPs) appearing in the newly published NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3. At the same time, the DoD reaffirmed that contractors must continue complying with Revision 2 thanks to a previously issued class deviation. What does this mean in plain terms? The DoD is slowly pulling back the curtain on the next major shift in cybersecurity compliance. Still, the full prestige hasn’t happened yet.Continue Reading The “Prestige”: DoD Unveils NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3, Organizationally Defined Parameters

Contractor past performance evaluations are important factors in source selection decisions under Parts 8 and 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), and they can easily make or break a contractor’s federal customer base. Especially vulnerable are contractors competing in Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (“LPTA”) procurements, where a bad past performance rating can make contractors ineligible due to an “unacceptable” technical rating even though they may offer the lowest price. The submission by Government contracting officials of a contractor’s performance evaluation to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) is required in most instances; however, the contractor’s remedies for correcting poor performance evaluations due to mistakes and material omissions by the evaluator are limited in both time and scope. And as the DoD’s Inspector General (“IG”) has repeatedly pointed out, most recently in its May 9, 2017 report, Summary of Audits on Assessing Contractor Performance (noting a large percentage of DoD performance assessment reports are late and not prepared correctly and accurately), mistakes often happen. Contractors looking to sustain their business in the federal marketplace need to be properly armed with the weapons available to challenge poor performance evaluations when the agency gets it wrong.
Continue Reading Sparring with CPARS: Some Tips on Avoiding and Curing Bad Past Performance Evaluations That Can Haunt and Jeopardize a Government Contractor’s Business for Years

The comment period for DoD’s proposed rule amending DFARS 212 has been extended to November 10. Click here.

The passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 saw the dawning of a new era in procurement policy, pursuant to which sweeping changes to the procurement laws and regulations governing the acquisition of goods and services offered and sold in the commercial marketplace took hold. These goods and services are referred to, and defined, in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) as “commercial items.” Two major effects of these legislative landmarks were: (1) the streamlining and modification of certifications and clauses required in solicitations and contracts for commercial items; and (2) the exemption of commercial item suppliers from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act (“TINA”).Continue Reading Developments in DoD’s Treatment of Commercial Item Assertions