Here are some of the requirements from the Department of Homeland Security’s latest SBIR RFPs
“Additional deliverables in this phase include the following (templates to be provided later by the federal Program Manager):
I recently participated in a Navy SBIR conference where one of the other panelists encouraged contractors not to worry about the budgets on their SBIR Phase One. It appears that may no longer be the case.
I had a dim memory of the DOD program staff asking for similar reports years ago. I went to look and found one form so old that I cringed at the title: “Fund Man Hours Expenditures”. I imagine an updated version of this is in many small business contractor’s futures.
All of this underlines the importance of doing it right from the start. Contractors starting out should start out with a cost accounting system that will meet their needs and the government requirements.
In 1998, I listened to an IT staff member from a large contractor proceed to chew out the contractor’s accounting staff for ‘losing’ a folder stored on the company’s servers containing all of the year-end closing work. He proceeds to call the staff “idiots” and ignorant while glossing over the fact that the IT department’s backup of the critical data had failed the night before.
He noticed my smile and could not decide if I was agreeing with him or laughing at him, so he asked me what the F**K I was smiling about. I replied,
“I want to thank you. For years people have criticized accountants as being unresponsive to the company’s needs, speaking a language no one else understands, and not really caring about the success of the company. People now say this about IT people instead”.
A few weeks later a software consultant, with full access to all of the IT systems, destroyed the company’s general ledger by using direct access to the database to create new balances in 146 general ledger accounts. The consultant then spent months trying to fix the error while hiding it from the company. Nine months later, one of the company’s employees printed out a general ledger report that showed a WIP balance of a little over two million dollars while the subsidiary ledger showed an amount several times larger.
What saved us was the trial balance that I had printed out the day before the consultant screwed up the general ledger. I took the printout with me as a resource for my work for them with DCAA.
As a result of this lesson, and too many others, I started asking myself twenty years ago about the relationship between accounting and IT. Part of my thinking can be seen in the name I chose for my later technology company: “Accountable Technologies”. I would love to say that Edward Snowden was the final nail in the coffin, but there are thousands of accidental and deliberate Snowdens scattered across American businesses, large and small.
I personally believe that IT personnel should have episodic access to the accounting system; not at will. Perhaps you do not agree with this, fine.
But, you should take advantage of the new cyber security requirements adopted by the Department of Defense to think about the issue, to develop your own policies and procedures.
DARPA put up an excellent guide for small business with links to expanded materials. Take a look and think about it.
By, the way, if you were wondering what happened to the missing folder, an employee visiting from another location to document procedures, had moved the folder to her personal files for future reference thinking she had copied it. We discovered this a couple of hours later when she wandered in to the office.
More at www.dcaacompliance.com
In the current crisis surrounding DCAA, it is possible to receive a cost type contract requiring an approved accounting system without actually having anyone from the government look at your accounting system.
This may sound like a gift from heaven but it is not. All it does is transfer the risk off the government’s back and onto yours. Under this increasingly common scenario the contractor assumes the following risks:
|The government can come in at any time and evaluate your accounting system with disastrous results to include: suspension of full payments and even contract termination (the latter is extremely rare).|
The government can suddenly withhold all or part of your payments until they now decide your accounting system is adequate. They may even expect you to continue working while the mess is sorted out.
This withhold is now actually part of the Department of Defense regulations and the subject of a recent DOD OIG audit. This audit criticized DCMA for not withholding 5% of total payments after an accounting system was found inadequate.
This is not the 15% of your fee or profit you may have heard about. This is up to 5% of your total billing. Remember, profits on cost type contracts usually average 5% to 7% of costs billed. If the government refuses to pay 5% of your total billing they just eliminated the vast majority of your profits.
Oh, and it can get worse. Applied Physical Sciences, a small contractor, went to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) claiming the government failed to reimburse over a million dollars. The government simply refused to pay them based on an inadequate accounting system, arguing that the inadequacy made it impossible to determine if any of the costs claimed were actually associated with government work. Applied Physical Sciences actually raised the inadequate accounting system as a defense, asserting the government should not have awarded them a cost contract. Alas (or not), the government won.
|The lesson is ‘crystal clear’. The government awarded the contract in complete disregard of the government’s own standards and the contractor paid for it.|
The lesson is ‘crystal clear’. The government awarded the contract in complete disregard of the government’s own standards and the contractor paid for it. The contractor paid for it not because of the government’s failure to approve the accounting system, but because there was no adequate accounting system to support the contractor’s claimed costs.
They can also hold up any future contracts awaiting the now necessary approval.
|Even as the government has lost in way in how to enforce compliance, contractors need to understand the importance of excellent accounting systems to the government.|
Time and time again I am surprised by contractors who believe that accounting for government dollars on their part is unnecessary and a waste of time. A few years ago, I declined to work with a government contractor who bragged about getting DCAA to approve his accounting system without a general ledger system and his refusal to comply with the standards (or as he put it: “ridiculous demands”).
He wished to engage me to prepare and submit the billing on a cost type contract based on what he told me to bill. When I declined the ‘opportunity’, he accused me of being scared. When I told a friend about his comments; she teased me, stating that I was ex 82nd Airborne and not scared of anything. “No,” I replied, “I am scared, not of the government, but him”.
Your accounting system is important because the government says so, even if they come back after three years to punish you.
Each year the government spends billions of dollars with contractors providing vital services for our country. All of this money, to include classified work, is ultimately accountable to taxpayers (we all remember the stories about $400 hammers purchased by the Defense Department). The good contractors reading this book have no desire to make the front page of the papers (or worse the bench in front of a federal judge) because of their lack of accountability.
Almost immediately after publishing the new regulations about contractor business systems, DCMA hit Lockheed Martin with a reduction of 5% in payments for the F-35 fighter. Last time I checked the total withholding was over 47 million dollars. If five percent does not seem like a lot, it represents almost all of the profit Lockheed planned on the F-35. Until they get their business systems approved they are working for free.
It is not only the Defense Department that is tightening down on contractor accountability, look at a recent Department of Energy regulation:
Contractor business systems and its internal controls are the first line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse. Weak control systems increase the risk of unallowable and unreasonable cost on Government contracts. When a contract includes these business systems clauses, it will require the contractor to meet business system criteria for its estimating system, accounting system, earned value management system, purchasing management system, and property management system. When the contractor has acceptable business systems that comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, this will improve contract performance. Under certain conditions, if the business system has significant deficiencies, the contracting officer will be able to withhold a percentage of payments until the significant deficiencies are corrected.
Taxpayers demand accountability and the government will demand accountability from you, not stories, not promises.
 Evaluation of Defense Contract Management Agency Actions on Reported DoD Contractor Business System Deficiencies (Project No. D2013-DAPOCF-0201.002) DODIG-2016-001
 Lockheed Martin just finished three years of fee withholding for a noncompliant estimating system.
 Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) 56581 and 58038
 We will discuss the regulations later in the chapter.
Excerpt from Surviving a DCAA Audit, available on Amazon
Arthur Andersen & Co., which helps set up internal controls for companies to prevent employee theft and fraud, itself was victimized by a longtime employee who embezzled $2.3 million over five years, authorities alleged Thursday.
During 21 years with the Chicago-based firm, Raymond R. Parcon, 42, of Naperville, rose to become a tax manager in the firm’s U.S. Tax Group, from which position he engineered the clever scheme, according to charges filed in federal court.
Among his duties, Parcon had authority to issue checks to federal and state tax authorities to pay Andersen’s employee tax obligations, prosecutors said.
On repeated occasions between mid-1989 and early 1994, he falsified paperwork to make it appear sizable checks had been sent to the Internal Revenue Service and Illinois tax officials to cover the company’s withholding obligations, prosecutors said.
In reality, Parcon submitted those checks, sometimes for hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time as payments on his personal tax debt, and then claimed huge refunds from the IRS and the Illinois Department of Revenue, the charges alleged.
When the money was refunded to him, Parcon deposited the funds in his personal bank accounts, the government said.
We do not
Often, small business government contractors require all of these services. The written tax code numbers in the thousands of pages as do the laws and regulations relevant to government contracting compliance. Few accountants make the attempt to keep up with both areas and even within larger accounting firms the specialties (tax and government contracting compliance) are split among different practitioners.
One of the many pleasures in our practice is working with the contractor’s tax accountant or bookkeeper. The contractor benefits by having access to two professionals with a bit of crossover for the same price. Two opinions in harmony, most of the time.
I flew in to support a contractor on an accounting system audit in conjunction with his tax accountant. DCAA showed up and we began one of the strangest audits in the almost thirty years of work in this area. If I told all of the story, DCAA would attempt to send my old unit from the 82nd Airborne after me, but I will tell part of it.
Toward the end of the rather strange audit, the DCAA auditor went on a rampage about small business contractors keeping their books on a cash basis.
This is not an unusual complaint made by some DCAA auditors, but I had never heard contractors referred to as idiots for the practices, especially in front of one of these “idiot” contractors.
I went on my usual contractor defense, explaining to the auditor the history of accrued accounting and the very classical utilization of the GAAP accounting cycle which allowed you to keep the books on a cash basis during the period and make the accruals as part of the closing process.
In this case, as in too many others, my purpose was to remind and educate the auditor not to rush to judgement and to expand their knowledge of the accounting world beyond the limited field of DCAA auditing. I sought to gently argue that the DCAA auditor’s strong comments were not only wrong but displayed a lack of knowledge on how accounting is actually practiced in the trenches.
The client’s tax accountant took a different approach, and I loved it.
He turned to the auditor and told him in no uncertain terms that the contractor kept his books on a cash basis because he, the tax accountant, recommend the contractor do so and that any small business owner that did not do so was an idiot and paying thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes.
The room fell silent and I managed to keep a straight face as I backed the tax accountant up and said that not only was he correct, it was common sense, and allowed under GAAP as I previously outlined (cash converted to accrual during period close).
The DCAA auditor quickly packed up and left. I held my breath for a couple of days until DCAA approved the contractor’s accounting system, even though I knew that both the tax accountant and I made strong arguments in defense of the contractor’s practices.
This is simply one of the countless examples of where we worked hand in hand with the contractor’s tax accountant and/or bookkeeper to move the contractor’s business forward.
Indeed, many of our referrals actually come from the contractor’s outside accountant and I am happy to return the favor when one of my clients is seeking tax or audit work.
I will direct the reader to a previous article about cash v accrual accounting for the specific accounting arguments at https://dcaacompliance.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/all-the-fuss-over-accrued-accounting/.
You know who you are. Yes, you, the one trying to figure out just when DCAA is going to enter your life, or worse, a non DCAA auditor or government official is assessing your operations and accounting system. Perhaps, just perhaps, you already had the pleasure and are reading this simply to improve the experience (read: “recover from disaster”).
Federal regulations require an approved accounting system before the government can award a cost type contract.
Two Presidents, Regan and Obama, started out their presidencies trying to reduce or even forbid government cost type contracts. In both cases, the number of cost type contracts actually grew.
There is a wealth of government created documents justifying the use of cost type contracts. Most of them center on the necessity of the government to assume the risks associated with the contract. Since cost type contracts are a reality, let me just make two observations and move on:
One of the bizarre results of the crisis government contracting entered into in the year 2008, is the increased award of cost type contracts to small contractors without an approved accounting system despite the requirements forbidding this. It started out by contracting officers just ignoring the regulations in order to get the critical contracts issued, but now some of them are actually ‘approving’ the accounting systems after the contractor fills out a form.
Of course contractors may pay for this action by the contracting officers. Recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decisions that asserted that a lack of an approved accounting system was no defense for the contractor and contractors with cost contracts and an unapproved accounting system appear to be holding all of the risks.
I am not telling contractors to turn down contracts, I am just pointing out issues for consideration.
Your solution may be as simple as taking the contract and making sure your accounting system is fully compliant in anticipation of the day DCAA or another auditor working for the government shows up.
The process of adopting and implementing an accounting system that would win government approval reduces the contractor’s risk and provides critical information to help them identify and manage costs.
 FAR (16-301-3(a)(3)) “(3) The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order…”
 ASBCA 56581 and 52593
Return on Investment (ROI) always proved a concept of limited value and extreme abstraction in government. How does one measure the ROI associated with a paratrooper sitting on the ground at the green ramp waiting to deploy in harm’s way? How is the ROI measured on a nuclear missile resting in its silo?
Several years ago, DCAA adopted ROI as one of its main arguments to defend (or excuse) the quantity and quality of their work to taxpayers. ROI was an alternative to other measurements such as audit productivity, down to 1.06 audits per year per auditor from 1.5 in 2012. Additionally, form your own opinion about the fact that DCAA wins only half of the fights that get past the auditors and are made by someone outside DCAA.
Let us not forget that one of DCAA’s critical missions, and long neglected by their own admission, is to prevent or reduce costs associated with cost findings by auditing by approving or disapproving contractor’s business systems. I argue that developing and subsequent auditing of a compliant accounting system is a major return on investment for both the contractor and government. I will point out that DCAA recently developed and launched new tools that make major strides in this area with preliminary checklist forms and new audit programs that I believe will greatly enhance DCAA’s future efforts in this area.
I question how DCAA measures ROI as they include forward pricing ‘savings’ in the calculation. This is a classic example of counting your chickens before the eggs hatch. If a contractor proposes $100,000 in fringe benefit costs and DCAA only approves $80,000, DCAA counts the $20,000 toward ROI. Unfortunately, when the year ends the contractor may discover the fringe costs proved $110,000 and bill the government for the $30,000 in difference. To further complicate the issue, the incurred cost submission may propose a different number and the subsequent audit even a fourth number.
The irony of all of this is the development of the ROI model contributed to DCAA’s current crisis, the continued replacement of DCAA as incurred cost proposal auditors by outside accounting firms. ROI is now a dangerous temptation in evaluating ‘independent” accounting firms’ “success” in auditing incurred cost proposals.
In recent testimony before Congress, Industry complained that DCAA acted more like a collection agency than auditors. Imagine our response if this becomes formalized as commercial contractors are awarded contracts on their promises regarding return on investment.
 There is no indication that DCAA follows the potential saving through the entire chain. First, they do not report how they calculated the ‘savings’ and given the incurred cost proposal backlog of years, one would wonder about the practicality of going beyond the simplest and first number.
The scratched out areas were discussed in previous articles. Today, I am going to look at the last two areas, “Accrued costs crossing the fiscal year” and “Bonuses”. Again, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am an accountant and there may be some accounting advice.
Twice in the ruling the government raises an objection to the allowability of TCI’s costs because TCI accrued them in one year and expensed them in a subsequent year. At least I hope that is the government’s objection as the only reasonable alternative opens up a can of worms that the government would appear blind to.
Here are the two objections:
The ACO also disallowed some of the bonuses because they were paid in March 2008, in the fiscal year after FY 2007, which is the subject of this ICP.
According to the COFD, this prohibition prevented TSI from submitting its legal costs contemporaneously with their being incurred, 15 but the reason that TSI gave the DCAA for submitting the costs in the FY 2007 ICP, instead of in 2006 (when it supposedly became aware of the fact that it was cleared of wrongdoing), was that it “forgot” (R4, tab 16 at 260). Mr. Fletcher (with whom DCAA was dealing and would have been the person who DCAA claimed stated that he “forgot” to include the legal fees in FY 2006) denies ever making such a statement to DCAA (tr. 2/212).
For its part, the government does not dispute the fact that the legal fees for the investigation, as subjected to the 20% discount, would otherwise be allowable (see gov’t br. at 62, 64 ), but argues that the fees were expensed to the wrong year (id. at 62-63).
In the first case, the Board ignored the timing argument and disallowed the bonuses for reasons we will discuss later. In the second case, the Board directly rejected the timing argument in reference to the legal fees and allowed the majority of the fees.
Over the years, I encountered this timing argument from only a couple of DCAA auditors. Auditors raised the argument rarely and we addressed it pretty quickly by responding that GAAP required the accruals. The question displays a limited understanding of accrued accounting which is forgivable in a young auditor working through the differences between cost and expense. It is a bit more difficult to understand when the limited understanding rises all the way up DCAA and into an appeal before the Appeals Board. It is disheartening to look at the Appeals Board teaching DCAA GAAP 101.
Let us start with a simple absolute rule: if a cost is properly accrued and recorded, this is only reconsidered if the original entry is invalidated. An example of invalidation would be a subsequent decision not to pay the accrued expense. I would also note that GAAP enjoys extensive procedures for addressing such a subsequent event.
Legal fees present some unique challenges in government contractor accounting. Legal fees are, in my humble opinion, one of the only reasons for suspense accounts, as I go into detail about in this previous article. As I recommend in this article, legal costs where the allowability is unknown at yearend should be capitalized (after being accounted for tax and financial statement purposes) and expensed out as either claimed or unclaimed when their character is recognized. This would be a GAAP compliant policy in keeping with government contracting requirements.
In order for the government’s argument to make sense — that the contractor “forget” (see above) and the contractor expensed them in the wrong year, there are only three reasonable possibilities: 1) the costs were not on the general ledger or 2) the expenses were not recorded properly in the first place (capitalized instead of expensed), or 3) the expenses were capitalized but not expensed properly (the wrong year).
Obviously, the first issue is the can of worms I mentioned earlier and, if true, we would be experiencing a completely different discussion.
The second possibility is one that major publicly traded corporations are often accused of – unnecessary capitalization to control earnings. Not something a tax paying small business if often accused of, and again the argument here would not be timing but why the expense was capitalized.
As noted above, GAAP enjoys extensive rules to address mistakes surrounding the third possibility and DCAA does not appear to raise these, especially in light of both times DCAA raises timing in this case (bonus and legal fees).
No, DCAA seems to object to the fact that the contractor wishes to charge the government in 2007 but not pay it until 2008.
Hm, isn’t that concept enshrined in the FAR at FAR 52.216-7? The one where a few DCAA auditors chastise contractors for not paying accrued expenses fast enough?
Come on DCAA, the real question is if the contractor reversed the accruals in 2008 before paying them or just expensed them again.
Bonuses or Incentive pay, present unique challenges for contractors. The issue is complicated by the specific and narrow regulations found within the FAR.
The Appeals Board quotes FAR 31-205.6(f) in its entirety but also utilized FAR 31-205.6(a)(6) when they refer to profits:
“This determination is buttressed by evidence that Mr. Fletcher considered the bonus pool to effectively come from company profits and the fact its distribution ca at the whim of TSI’s “in” group, justifying “close scrutiny,” Nolan Brothers, 437 F.2d at 1834, which it simply cannot withstand.”.
Every time a DCAA auditor brings up the ‘distribution of profits’ I respond, or am tempted to respond, that the statute defines the 401(k) as a ‘profit sharing’ plan and that is allowable.
I believe it is proper for DCAA, and in this case the Appeals Board, to use the IRS distribution of profits as a method for assessing unclaimed bonuses, I just wish they understood it better. The IRS standard is directed toward ‘C’ corporations that pay out all of the profits at year end as a bonus to avoid the double taxation inherit in ‘C’ corporations. But the rules work as a good method of determining what is a profit and what is earned compensation.
What every small business contractor wants is the right to award employees, at management’s complete discretion, for a job well done. I imagine the employees would like the same.
The regulations take all the fun out. In order to pass muster a bonus plan must be so well written that it is “an agreement to make such payment”. TCI failed this standard even after they thought they received DCAA acceptance.
So what is a poor small business contractor to do? Why the same thing the huge federal government does: avoid the words “bonus” or “incentive pay”.
Remember the GSA bonus scandals a few years ago? When the federal government handed out millions of dollars to employees despite poor performance? Look for the words “bonus” or “incentive pay” in GSA policies. The word “bonus” is there alongside another program not as extensively defined: “award”.
Contractors are free to develop well written and measurable bonus plans that meet the regulatory requirements. Contractors should also reserve the right to award employees for single or periodic exceptional performance (as does the federal government).
Of course awards are subject to audit and question by DCAA, but under the reasonable and prudent standard plus a possible excessive compensation argument.
The Ignorance regarding how DCAA works is not limited to contractors, but is prevalent (no surprise) among government acquisition staff. The ignorance found among the GAO appeals division is a bit surprising and disconcerting.
There have been several decisions recently supporting the acquisition staff’s positions requiring a DCAA approved accounting system. Bidders who are not “DCAA Approved” face disqualification or penalization in the bidding process. Look at my recent article on this issue.
In the famous words of Bugs Bunny “I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque”, the GAO has taken a strange turn moving government contracting out of the Twilight Zone and into Toonland.
Now, A contractor is not only required to bid with only an approved DCAA accounting system, but must have a positive assertion of the DCAA approval. The contractor asserting such and even providing the DCAA audit report number is now deemed inadequate.
Leader essentially argues that the solicitation required only that offerors have received verification from DCAA that their accounting systems had been audited and determined adequate, but did not require the submission of any documentation from DCAA itself. Protest at 5-6; Comments at 3-4. In this regard, Leader contends that its elimination from the competition was unreasonable because Leader met the RFP’s requirement by providing its own unambiguous statement that its accounting system had been audited and approved by DCAA, along with the 2008 DCAA audit report number and additional information. Id. In Leader’s view, this information was sufficient for the agency itself to independently confirm with DCAA the verification and audit of its accounting system. Id.
In response, the agency acknowledges that a DCAA audit report would have been an acceptable source of verification; however, it explains that the solicitation expressly required offerors to furnish verification from DCAA with its proposal. AR, MOL at 8; AR, see also Supp. MOL at 3-6. In this regard, the agency also explains that the solicitation did not permit offerors to essentially self-verify the adequacy of their accounting systems. Rather, by requiring offerors to provide verification from DCAA, the agency would obtain independent verification that offerors’ accounting systems had been audited and determined adequate. Id.
When a dispute arises as to the actual meaning of solicitation language, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation. See Level 3 Commc’ns LLC, B-412854 et al., June 21, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 171 at 7; KAES Enters., LLC, B-411225 et al., June 18, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 186 at 5. A solicitation is not ambiguous unless it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. WingGate Travel, Inc., B-412921, July 1, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 179 at 7. If the solicitation language is unambiguous, our inquiry ceases. Id.
On this record, we find that the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation, when read as a whole, is reasonable, whereas the protester’s interpretation is not reasonable. Here, the solicitation stated that an offeror “must have verification from [DCAA]. . . of an accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate” in order to be eligible for award. Id. at L-17 (emphasis added). The solicitation also advised that the agency would “evaluate evidence that the [o]fferor . . . [has] an adequate accounting system . . . as required under Section L.3.1.h.” Id. at M-3 (emphasis added). Finally, the solicitation cautioned that failure to “furnish verification of an adequate cost accounting system” would result in a rating of unacceptable and render the proposal ineligible for award. Id. (emphasis added). As explained by the agency, contrary to Leader’s contentions, the solicitation did not contemplate that an offeror could simply provide a declarative statement in lieu of the submission of evidence from DCAA verifying the adequacy of the offeror’s accounting system. See AR, Supp. MOL at 5. On this record, we find that the agency followed the clear and unambiguous terms of the solicitation and reasonably found Leader’s proposal unacceptable because it did not provide verification from DCAA that its accounting system had been audited and deemed adequate.
Leader also argues that its proposal should nonetheless have been accepted because it satisfied the agency’s actual and reasonable needs, its acceptance would not result in unfair prejudice to other offerors or provide Leader with a competitive advantage, and it contained sufficient information for the agency to obtain additional verification or confirmation with DCAA. See Protest at 6; Comments at 7-8. We disagree.
Clearly stated RFP requirements are considered material to the needs of the government, and a proposal that fails to conform to such material terms is unacceptable and may not form the basis for award. AttainX, Inc.; FreeAlliance.com, LLC, B-413104.5, B-413104.6, Nov. 10, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 330 at 5; TYBRIN Corp., B-298364.6, B-298364.7, Mar. 13, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 51 at 5; National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire Support, B-293970, B-293970.2, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 140 at 4-5. As explained by the agency, here, the requirement to provide verification from DCAA was a material requirement, the waiver of which would result in an inconsistent and unfair evaluation, thereby prejudicing other offerors. See AR, MOL at 6-7; AR, Supp. MOL at 7. Accordingly, we have no basis to sustain the protest.
Well, golly gee, what is next? Are we awaiting a disqualification because the DCAA audit is not fresh (over two years old)?