I just received a call from a client regarding DCAA’s work on their 2007 incurred cost submission. Last week DCAA had provided the client with a draft audit report that:
- Disclaimed an opinion on the incurred cost submission due to unspecified scope limitations
- Although they disclaimed an opinion they offered several – all of them totaling up to several hundred thousand dollars.
We responded with an email asking:
1). How you can disclaim an opinion but still issue opinions on costs?
2) Requesting the details making up these findings.
3) Reserving the right to make a management response before scheduling an exit interview (the draft report stated that an exit interview would be conducted).
4) In a telephone conversation with the client, DCAA reported that the scope limitation arose out of DCMA withdrawing funding for the audit. We addressed this in the email and both asked for clarification, and noted if this was actually the reason we believed it should be specified in DCAA’s report.
DCAA did not respond to this email and the client followed up yesterday with an email requesting the data detail in order to review it.
DCAA called the client this morning and stated the following:
- They had finalized and issued the report without either an exit interview or a management response.
- That the contractor’s only possible action was to address the findings with the ACO.
- That even if there had been an exit interview the report would not have changed.
Of course I can only conclude that the client misunderstood and DCAA did not act in this manner.There should be more to this story to explain these decisions.
Of course I can only conclude that the client misunderstood and DCAA did not act in this manner.