In January 2024, a Tennessee-based defense contractor learned the catastrophic cost of CAS 402 disclosure failures when DCAA auditors discovered systematic inconsistencies between disclosed cost accounting practices and actual operations spanning 22 months. The contractor faced $18.3 million in questioned costs, immediate contract suspension, and potential debarment after investigators found that disclosed indirect cost allocation methods bore no resemblance to actual charging practices, supervisory cost pools were improperly combined despite specific disclosure statements to the contrary, and cost accounting period changes were implemented without required disclosure statement revisions. This enforcement action exemplifies the critical importance of CAS 402 disclosure statements that contractors routinely treat as bureaucratic formalities—a perspective that has proven ruinously expensive.

Legal Foundation: The Regulatory Framework Governing Disclosure Obligations

CAS 402 disclosure statement requirements derive their enforcement authority from three interlocking regulatory mandates that create comprehensive oversight of contractor cost accounting practices. 48 CFR 9904.402, “Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same Purpose,” establishes the fundamental requirement that contractors must allocate costs incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances consistently across all cost objectives. This standard mandates that contractors disclose their actual cost accounting practices through detailed disclosure statements that serve as binding commitments for contract performance. The disclosure statement becomes a legal contract modification requiring strict adherence under penalty of False Claims Act liability.

48 CFR 9903.202-1 provides specific implementation requirements for disclosure statement submission, mandating that CAS-covered contractors submit detailed disclosure statements before contract award when meeting specified thresholds. The regulation requires contractors to describe their actual cost accounting practices in sufficient detail to permit government evaluation of compliance with Cost Accounting Standards. Disclosure statements must reflect actual practices, not intended or aspirational procedures, creating immediate liability when practices deviate from disclosures.

FAR 52.230-3, “Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices,” incorporates disclosure requirements directly into contract terms, making compliance a material contract condition. This clause requires contractors to comply with CAS 9904.401, 9904.402, 9904.405, and 9904.406, while mandating consistent adherence to disclosed cost accounting practices. Violations trigger automatic penalties under FAR 52.230-2, including cost disallowance, contract price adjustment, and potential contract termination for material noncompliance.

Common Violation Patterns: Where Contractors Systematically Fail

DCAA’s intensified CAS 402 enforcement has revealed five recurring violation patterns that contractors consistently underestimate. Indirect cost allocation inconsistencies represent the most prevalent and expensive violation category. Contractors routinely disclose specific indirect cost allocation methodologies but implement different practices in actual operations. This pattern violates the fundamental consistency requirement of CAS 402, which mandates identical treatment of like costs in like circumstances. DCAA auditors systematically compare disclosed practices with actual accounting records, resulting in complete cost disallowance for periods of noncompliance.

Cost accounting period violations constitute the second major pattern. Many contractors modify their cost accounting periods without submitting required disclosure statement revisions, violating CAS 9904.406 requirements. Cost accounting period changes require formal disclosure statement amendments with government approval before implementation. Unauthorized changes create systematic noncompliance affecting all contract cost allocations during the violation period.

Shared cost allocation failures emerge when contractors combine cost pools or modify allocation bases without disclosure statement updates. CAS 402 requires consistent allocation of shared costs across all cost objectives, with disclosed methodologies serving as binding commitments. Contractors frequently modify shared service allocations based on operational convenience rather than disclosed practices, creating automatic noncompliance conditions that affect multiple contracts simultaneously.

Estimating practice deviations occur when contractors use different cost allocation methodologies for proposal preparation versus actual cost accumulation. CAS 9904.401 requires consistency between estimating and accumulating practices, with disclosure statements documenting specific methodologies for both functions. Deviations between estimated and actual practices create systematic noncompliance that affects contract pricing and cost allowability determinations.

Disclosure statement currency violations round out the common patterns. Contractors must maintain current disclosure statements reflecting actual practices, with formal amendments required for any material changes. Many contractors operate with outdated disclosure statements that no longer reflect current practices, creating automatic noncompliance regardless of whether actual practices are reasonable or consistent.

Step-by-Step Compliance Requirements for CAS 402 Disclosure

Step 1: Conduct Comprehensive Practice Documentation Review Perform detailed analysis of all current cost accounting practices including indirect cost allocation methodologies, shared cost distribution methods, cost accounting period definitions, and estimating procedures. Document actual practices through operational procedure reviews, accounting system analysis, and personnel interviews. Compare documented actual practices with existing disclosure statements to identify discrepancies requiring immediate correction. This review must encompass all organizational units and cost accounting practices affecting government contracts.

Step 2: Implement Disclosure Statement Alignment Procedures Develop comprehensive procedures ensuring ongoing alignment between disclosed practices and actual operations. Establish quarterly reviews comparing actual cost allocation practices with disclosure statement requirements, including detailed variance analysis and corrective action protocols. Create management oversight systems requiring approval for any cost accounting practice changes before implementation. Deploy automated monitoring systems tracking compliance with disclosed indirect cost allocation bases and shared cost distribution methodologies.

Step 3: Establish Formal Amendment Management System Create structured processes for identifying, evaluating, and submitting disclosure statement amendments for any material practice changes. Develop change control procedures requiring formal impact analysis before implementing cost accounting modifications. Establish timelines ensuring disclosure statement amendments are submitted and approved before practice changes take effect. Maintain comprehensive documentation supporting all proposed amendments including business justification and compliance analysis.

Step 4: Deploy Real-Time Compliance Monitoring Install integrated accounting systems providing real-time monitoring of cost allocation practices against disclosed methodologies. Implement exception reporting identifying any deviations from disclosed indirect cost allocation bases, shared cost distribution methods, or cost accounting period requirements. Create automated alerts for potential noncompliance conditions requiring immediate management attention. Establish monthly compliance reporting providing management visibility into CAS 402 adherence across all organizational units.

Step 5: Develop Comprehensive Training and Oversight Programs Implement organization-wide training programs ensuring all personnel understand CAS 402 requirements and disclosure statement obligations. Create role-specific training for accounting personnel, project managers, and supervisors addressing their respective compliance responsibilities. Establish annual certification programs requiring personnel acknowledgment of disclosure statement requirements and compliance obligations. Deploy ongoing oversight programs including internal audits, compliance testing, and corrective action protocols for identified deficiencies.

Cost Analysis: Investment vs. Catastrophic Violations

The financial analysis for CAS 402 compliance demonstrates overwhelming advantages for proactive investment over reactive violation management. Comprehensive disclosure statement compliance system implementation costs typically range from $250,000 to $500,000 including consulting services, system integration, training, and process development. Annual maintenance costs average $100,000 to $150,000 for ongoing compliance monitoring, quarterly reviews, and system updates.

CAS 402 violation consequences create exponentially higher financial exposure through multiple penalty mechanisms. Direct cost disallowance affects all questioned costs plus associated overhead burdens, typically ranging from $5 million to $25 million per violation case based on contract volume and duration. The government has the authority to withhold payments, apply interest on overpayments and even unilaterally adjust the price of CAS-covered contracts, creating immediate cash flow impacts that can exceed direct penalty costs.

Contract price adjustments under FAR 52.230-2 impose additional financial penalties ranging from 5% to 15% of affected contract values, with retroactive application to violation commencement dates. Professional services costs for violation remediation including specialized CAS consulting, legal representation, and accounting system reconstruction typically exceed $750,000 for significant findings. These unallowable costs must be absorbed during already challenging audit periods, creating severe financial stress for affected contractors.

The consequences of noncompliance can be severe, including contract price reductions, penalties, and even suspension or debarment from future government contracts. Long-term competitive impacts often exceed immediate penalty costs by substantial margins, with debarment eliminating revenue opportunities worth hundreds of millions over multi-year periods.

Multi-State Federal Jurisdiction: Uniform National Requirements

CAS 402 disclosure statement requirements apply uniformly across all federal jurisdictions regardless of contractor location, subsidiary operations, or regional business units. Federal regulations supersede state accounting standards, creating consistent national compliance obligations that eliminate contractor ability to leverage favorable state requirements. This uniform application extends to multi-state corporate structures where subsidiaries or divisions may operate under different state laws but remain subject to identical federal CAS requirements.

Contractors operating distributed organizations must ensure disclosure statements accurately reflect practices across all locations while maintaining compliance with applicable state business laws. The complexity increases when subsidiaries operate in states with different accounting or corporate governance requirements than parent company locations. Successful compliance requires integrated systems capable of monitoring and reporting practices across all organizational units regardless of geographic distribution.

DCAA’s enforcement authority extends to all contractor facilities, subsidiaries, and business units regardless of location or organizational structure. Regional audit offices maintain consistent CAS 402 enforcement standards nationwide, eliminating contractor ability to seek favorable audit environments. The agency’s centralized guidance ensures uniform interpretation and application of disclosure statement requirements across all federal contracting relationships.

Enforcement Reality: DCAA’s Strategic CAS Focus

DCAA’s 2025 audit strategy explicitly identifies CAS 402 disclosure statement compliance as a critical enforcement priority requiring enhanced scrutiny and immediate corrective action. This strategic focus triggers automatic disclosure statement adequacy reviews for all contractors with CAS-covered contracts exceeding $50 million in annual volume. The agency’s approach emphasizes proactive compliance verification rather than reactive violation discovery, requiring contractors to demonstrate ongoing alignment between disclosed and actual practices.

Current enforcement data demonstrates CAS 402 violations in 67% of contractors with inadequate cost accounting systems, representing the second-highest violation category across all DCAA audit findings. This prevalence reflects contractor underestimation of disclosure statement legal significance and persistent treatment of disclosures as administrative documents rather than binding contract commitments with criminal liability implications.

Contractors maintaining proactive CAS 402 compliance programs demonstrate measurably superior audit outcomes with violation rates 71% lower than reactive organizations. This performance differential supports immediate compliance investment strategies over risk-based approaches that have proven catastrophic for contractors throughout 2024-2025. The disclosure statement enforcement landscape demands immediate attention from government contractors seeking to maintain competitive positioning and avoid devastating compliance failures.

Start Your Free Trial Today  see how Hour Timesheet ensures your organization stays DCAA-compliant and audit-ready

In September 2024, a Virginia-based aerospace contractor discovered the devastating cost of treating employee timesheet signatures as a mere formality when DCAA auditors uncovered systematic certification failures across 14 months of operations. The contractor faced $12.7 million in questioned costs and immediate contract suspension after investigators found that 73% of employee timesheets lacked proper certification signatures, supervisory approval workflows were routinely bypassed, and electronic signature systems failed to meet federal authentication standards. This enforcement action demonstrates DCAA’s intensified focus on employee certification requirements that many contractors dismiss as administrative overhead—a perspective that has proven catastrophically expensive.

Legal Foundation: The Regulatory Framework Demanding Certification

Employee certification requirements derive their enforcement power from three interconnected regulatory mandates that create comprehensive coverage of federal contractor timekeeping obligations. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.201-4 establishes the foundational requirement that allowable costs must be supported by “adequate records” demonstrating proper authorization and verification. This regulation specifically mandates that labor records include certification by responsible officials that charges are accurate and properly allocated. The certification requirement extends beyond mere acknowledgment to legal attestation of record accuracy under penalty of perjury.

Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) 412 reinforces certification obligations through its composition and measurement requirements for pension costs and compensation. CAS 412 mandates that contractor compensation records include proper authorization and certification procedures ensuring accurate cost allocation. The standard requires documented certification processes that demonstrate management review and approval of labor charges before submission to the government. Violations of CAS 412 certification requirements trigger automatic penalties under FAR 52.230-2, including cost disallowance and potential contract termination.

48 CFR 31.201-2 provides specific implementation guidance for certification requirements, mandating that contractor records demonstrate “the correct distribution of costs by cost centers, projects, contracts, or other cost objectives.” The regulation explicitly requires certification signatures from both employees and supervisory personnel, establishing a dual-verification system that prevents individual manipulation of labor charges. These certification requirements create legal liability under the False Claims Act when signatures are forged, backdated, or otherwise fraudulent.

Common Violation Patterns: Where Contractors Systematically Fail

DCAA’s enhanced enforcement focus has revealed five recurring certification violation patterns that contractors consistently underestimate. Supervisory signature bypass violations represent the most prevalent and expensive category. Contractors routinely allow employees to submit timesheets without proper supervisory review and certification, violating FAR requirements for dual verification. This practice creates immediate liability because supervisory signatures represent legal attestation that work was actually performed and properly charged.

Electronic signature system inadequacies constitute the second major violation pattern. Many contractors implement basic electronic signature systems that fail to meet federal authentication standards outlined in the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. DCAA auditors systematically challenge electronic signatures lacking proper identity verification, timestamp integrity, and tamper-evident security features. Systems unable to demonstrate signer authentication and document integrity face automatic rejection and complete cost disallowance.

Backdating and batch certification violations emerge when contractors allow supervisors to sign multiple timesheets simultaneously or approve records for previous periods without contemporaneous review. This practice violates the certification timing requirements mandating that signatures occur within the same pay period as the work performed. Batch approvals create systematic False Claims Act liability because supervisors cannot credibly attest to work performance they did not contemporaneously observe.

Delegation of signature authority failures occur when contractors permit administrative personnel or junior staff to sign timesheets on behalf of authorized supervisors. FAR 31.201-4 specifically requires signatures from “responsible officials” with actual knowledge of work performance and project charges. Unauthorized signature delegation creates criminal liability for both the signer and authorizing supervisor under federal fraud statutes.

Certification statement inadequacies round out the common violation patterns. Contractors frequently use generic signature blocks lacking the specific attestation language required by federal regulations. Proper certification must include explicit statements that signers have reviewed the records, verified their accuracy, and attest to proper cost allocation under penalty of perjury. Generic signature requirements fail DCAA scrutiny and trigger systematic challenges to all associated labor charges.

Step-by-Step Compliance Requirements for Employee Certification

Step 1: Implement Dual-Signature Verification Systems Deploy comprehensive timekeeping systems requiring both employee and supervisory certifications with specific attestation language mandated by FAR 31.201-4. Employee signatures must certify that reported hours are accurate and properly allocated to specified projects or cost objectives. Supervisory signatures must attest that work was actually performed, properly supervised, and correctly charged. Both signatures must occur within the same pay period and include legal certification language stating attestation is made under penalty of perjury.

Step 2: Deploy Federal-Grade Electronic Signature Infrastructure Install enterprise electronic signature systems meeting federal authentication standards with multi-factor identity verification, tamper-evident document security, and comprehensive audit trails. Systems must authenticate signer identity through multiple verification methods, maintain encrypted signature certificates, and provide complete modification history. Electronic signatures must meet or exceed the legal equivalency standards established in the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and maintain indefinite integrity for audit purposes.

Step 3: Establish Contemporaneous Certification Protocols Develop mandatory procedures requiring timekeeping certifications within 24 hours of the work period with automatic system controls preventing late submissions without documented business justification. Supervisors must certify timesheets only after confirming actual work performance through project deliverables, meeting attendance, or other documented verification. Establish escalation procedures for certification delays and maintain comprehensive documentation of any exceptions or late approvals with appropriate management authorization.

Step 4: Create Comprehensive Signature Authority Matrix Document specific signature authorities for all personnel levels with clear delegation parameters and regular authorization updates. Only personnel with direct supervisory responsibility and actual knowledge of work performance may certify employee timesheets. Create written delegation procedures for temporary absences with appropriate management approval and documentation requirements. Maintain current signature cards with specimen signatures and regular authentication updates for both manual and electronic signature systems.

Step 5: Develop Audit-Ready Certification Documentation Implement comprehensive record-keeping systems maintaining complete certification histories including signature timestamps, modification records, and approval workflows. Documentation must demonstrate compliance with all federal certification requirements and provide immediate audit trail access for DCAA reviews. Establish monthly certification compliance reviews with management reporting and corrective action protocols for any identified deficiencies.

Cost Analysis: Investment vs. Violation Consequences

The financial analysis for employee certification compliance demonstrates overwhelming cost advantages for proactive implementation over violation remediation. Comprehensive certification system implementation costs typically range from $150,000 to $300,000 including software licensing, system integration, training, and policy development. Annual maintenance costs average $50,000 to $75,000 for ongoing compliance monitoring and system updates.

Certification violation consequences create exponentially higher financial exposure. False Claims Act penalties range from $13,508 to $27,018 per violation under 31 U.S.C. § 3729, with treble damages applied to all questioned costs. A typical certification violation case involving 500 deficient timesheets triggers minimum penalties of $6.75 million before considering underlying cost disallowance and associated overhead impacts.

Contract suspension during certification violation investigations costs contractors $75,000 to $250,000 per month in lost revenue and overhead absorption. Professional services costs for violation remediation including legal representation, forensic accounting, and system reconstruction typically exceed $500,000 for significant findings. These costs are unallowable and must be absorbed by contractors, creating severe financial stress during already challenging audit periods.

Reputational damage from certification violations often eliminates future contracting opportunities worth millions annually. Government agencies maintain contractor performance databases that flag certification failures, resulting in competitive disadvantages for future procurements. The long-term financial impact of certification violations frequently exceeds immediate penalty costs by substantial margins.

Multi-State Federal Jurisdiction: Uniform National Requirements

Employee certification requirements apply uniformly across all federal jurisdictions regardless of contractor location or employee work sites. Federal regulations supersede state signature laws, creating consistent national compliance obligations that eliminate contractor ability to leverage favorable state requirements. This uniform application extends to remote work arrangements where employees may work from states with different legal standards than contractor home offices.

Contractors operating multi-state workforces must ensure certification systems meet federal standards across all locations while remaining compliant with applicable state employment laws. The complexity increases when employees work from states with stricter signature authentication requirements than federal minimums. Successful compliance requires systems capable of meeting the highest applicable standard across all jurisdictions where work is performed.

DCAA’s enforcement authority extends to all contractor facilities and personnel regardless of geographic distribution. Regional audit offices maintain consistent certification standards nationwide, eliminating contractor ability to seek favorable audit environments. The agency’s centralized guidance ensures uniform interpretation and application of certification requirements across all federal contracting relationships.

Enforcement Reality: DCAA’s Strategic Certification Focus

DCAA’s 2025 audit strategy explicitly identifies employee certification deficiencies as high-priority enforcement targets requiring enhanced scrutiny and immediate corrective action. This strategic focus triggers automatic certification reviews for all contractors with questioned cost findings, contract modifications, or prior audit exceptions. The agency’s approach emphasizes certification system adequacy verification before approving contractor accounting systems for government contracting.

Current enforcement data demonstrates certification violations in 84% of contractors with inadequate timekeeping systems, representing the highest violation category across all DCAA audit findings. This prevalence reflects contractor underestimation of certification legal significance and persistent treatment of signatures as administrative formalities rather than legal attestations with criminal liability implications.

Contractors maintaining proactive certification compliance programs demonstrate measurably superior audit outcomes with violation rates 78% lower than reactive organizations. This performance differential supports immediate compliance investment strategies over risk-based delay approaches that have proven catastrophic for contractors throughout 2024-2025.

The certification enforcement landscape demands immediate attention from government contractors seeking to maintain competitive positioning and avoid devastating compliance failures. DCAA’s intensified focus represents a permanent shift in audit methodology requiring corresponding evolution in contractor certification practices and management oversight systems.

Start Your Free Trial Today  see how Hour Timesheet ensures your organization stays DCAA-compliant and audit-ready

If you’re a government contractor, few phrases can trigger anxiety quite like “DCAA floor check.” Whether you’re new to government contracting or a seasoned professional, understanding what happens during these audits and how to prepare for them is crucial for maintaining compliance and protecting your contracts.

What Is a DCAA Floor Check?

A DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) floor check is an unannounced audit where DCAA representatives physically verify that employees charging time to government contracts are actually present and working on the tasks they’ve recorded. Think of it as a spot inspection designed to validate the accuracy of your timekeeping practices and labor charging procedures.

These audits serve as a critical control mechanism to ensure that taxpayer dollars allocated to government contracts are being used appropriately and that contractors are maintaining accurate records of labor charges.

Why Do Floor Checks Happen?

The DCAA conducts floor checks for several reasons:

Routine Compliance Verification: Floor checks are a standard part of DCAA’s oversight responsibilities. Even if you’ve done nothing wrong, you may still experience routine floor checks as part of normal audit procedures.

Risk-Based Selection: Contractors with higher-risk profiles, larger contracts, or those new to government contracting may face more frequent floor checks.

Specific Concerns: Sometimes floor checks are triggered by specific issues identified during other audits, employee complaints, or inconsistencies in submitted documentation.

Random Selection: To maintain the integrity of the audit process, DCAA also conducts random floor checks without any specific triggering event.

What Happens During a Floor Check?

Understanding the floor check process can help reduce anxiety and ensure your team responds appropriately when auditors arrive.

The Arrival

DCAA auditors typically arrive unannounced during regular business hours. They’ll present their credentials and request to speak with a designated point of contact, usually someone from management or your contracts department. The unannounced nature is intentional – it ensures auditors see your actual day-to-day operations rather than a prepared presentation.

The Interview Process

Auditors will randomly select employees who have charged time to government contracts and conduct brief interviews. These conversations typically cover:

• Current work assignments and which contracts they’re supporting
• Their understanding of proper timekeeping procedures
• Verification that they’re working on the tasks recorded in their timesheets
• Their physical presence in the location indicated by their time records
• Knowledge of company policies regarding labor charging

Employees might be asked to show their current timesheet or explain their recent time charges. The auditor may also request to see work products or evidence of the tasks being performed.

Documentation Review

Beyond employee interviews, auditors will examine various records and documents:

• Current timesheets and labor distribution reports
• Work authorization documents
• Project assignments and task orders
• Company timekeeping policies and procedures
• Training records related to timekeeping compliance
• Internal audit or review documentation

Management Discussion

After completing their fieldwork, auditors typically conduct an exit interview with management to discuss preliminary findings, ask clarifying questions, and provide initial feedback about any concerns identified during the floor check.

Common Issues Auditors Look For

Being aware of what auditors focus on can help you identify and address potential problems before they become findings.

Ghost Employees: Auditors verify that employees charging time are real people actually performing work. They’ll check for employees who are on vacation, sick leave, or otherwise absent but still showing productive hours charged to contracts.

Mischarging: This includes employees working on one contract while charging time to another, charging indirect tasks to direct contracts, or charging unallowable activities to government contracts.

Timesheet Accuracy: Auditors examine whether employees are recording time contemporaneously (as work is performed) rather than recreating timesheets after the fact. They also check for patterns suggesting fabricated entries.

Unauthorized Work: Employees performing tasks outside their authorized scope or working on contracts they’re not assigned to can trigger significant findings.

Policy Compliance: Auditors assess whether employees understand and follow company timekeeping policies, including proper approval processes and correction procedures.

How to Prepare for Floor Checks

While floor checks are unannounced, maintaining ongoing readiness is your best defense.

Establish Strong Timekeeping Policies

Develop comprehensive, clear policies that address:

• Daily time recording requirements
• Proper labor charging procedures
• Guidelines for splitting time between projects
• Procedures for corrections and adjustments
• Consequences for non-compliance

Make these policies easily accessible and ensure they’re regularly updated to reflect current regulations and contract requirements.

Implement Regular Training

Conduct timekeeping training for all employees, not just those currently working on government contracts. Training should cover:

• Proper time recording procedures
• Understanding of direct vs. indirect charges
• Contract-specific requirements
• Ethical responsibilities in government contracting
• How to respond during a floor check

Document all training sessions and maintain records of employee participation.

Conduct Internal Reviews

Don’t wait for DCAA to find problems. Implement your own internal floor checks and timekeeping audits. This helps you:

• Identify and correct issues before official audits
• Familiarize employees with the floor check process
• Demonstrate a culture of compliance to auditors
• Build confidence in your systems

Maintain Supporting Documentation

Ensure work authorizations, project assignments, and task orders are current and readily accessible. Employees should know where to find documentation supporting their time charges, and managers should regularly verify that assignments match timesheet entries.

Create a Response Plan

Develop a written procedure for handling DCAA visits that includes:

• Designated points of contact for auditors
• Employee notification procedures
• Document gathering responsibilities
• Guidelines for employee interactions with auditors
• Management review and response protocols

Best Practices for Success

Foster a Compliance Culture: Make accurate timekeeping a core value of your organization. When employees understand the importance of compliance beyond just avoiding penalties, they’re more likely to maintain accurate records consistently.

Use Technology Wisely: Implement automated timekeeping systems that include built-in controls, audit trails, and real-time reporting capabilities. These systems can flag potential issues before they become audit findings.

Communicate Regularly: Keep employees informed about timekeeping requirements and any changes to policies or procedures. Regular reminders about proper timekeeping practices help maintain awareness and compliance.

Document Everything: Maintain detailed records of all timekeeping-related activities, including training, internal audits, corrective actions, and policy updates. Comprehensive documentation demonstrates your commitment to compliance.

Address Issues Promptly: When you identify timekeeping problems, address them immediately. Document the issue, the corrective action taken, and steps to prevent recurrence. Auditors look favorably on contractors who self-identify and correct problems.

What to Do When Auditors Arrive

Despite your best preparation, the arrival of DCAA auditors can create stress. Here’s how to handle the situation professionally:

Stay Calm and Cooperative: Train your team to remain professional and cooperative. Attempting to delay or obstruct auditors will only raise suspicions and could lead to expanded audit scope.

Provide Requested Information: Supply documents and information as requested, but don’t volunteer information beyond what’s asked. If you need time to gather documents, communicate realistic timeframes to the auditor.

Be Honest and Direct: Encourage employees to answer questions truthfully and directly. If someone doesn’t know an answer, they should say so rather than speculate or guess.

Take Notes: Document the audit process, including who was interviewed, what documents were reviewed, and any concerns raised by auditors. These notes can be valuable for follow-up actions and future preparation.

Follow Up Appropriately: After the floor check, review any findings with your team, implement necessary corrective actions, and document your response to any issues identified.

Conclusion

DCAA floor checks don’t have to be a source of fear for government contractors. By understanding the process, maintaining strong timekeeping practices, and fostering a culture of compliance, you can approach these audits with confidence. Remember, DCAA’s goal isn’t to catch you doing something wrong – it’s to ensure that government contracts are executed properly and that taxpayer funds are used appropriately.

The key to success is preparation and consistency. Treat every day as if a floor check could happen, because it could. When your timekeeping practices are accurate, well-documented, and consistently followed, floor checks become just another routine part of government contracting rather than a crisis to be managed.

By implementing the strategies outlined in this guide, you’ll not only be better prepared for DCAA floor checks but also build stronger overall contract management practices that benefit your entire organization. Remember, good timekeeping isn’t just about compliance – it’s about building trust with your government customers and maintaining the integrity that’s essential for long-term success in government contracting.

In March 2024, a mid-sized defense contractor learned the brutal cost of inadequate remote work timekeeping when DCAA auditors discovered systematic violations spanning 18 months of hybrid work arrangements. The contractor faced $8.4 million in penalties and contract suspension after auditors found employees routinely batch-entering weekly time records, insufficient supervisory controls for remote work validation, and absence of real-time project charge verification systems. This case exemplifies DCAA’s intensified scrutiny of remote work timekeeping practices that have emerged as the agency’s primary enforcement target for 2024-2025.

Legal Foundation: The Regulatory Framework Under Fire

The Defense Contract Audit Agency’s expanded remote work enforcement authority stems from three foundational regulatory sources. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.201-4 establishes the fundamental requirement that “costs must be reasonable, allocable, and allowable” with contemporaneous documentation proving proper labor distribution. Under this regulation, remote work arrangements create heightened risk because traditional supervisory oversight mechanisms are absent, requiring contractors to implement enhanced verification systems.

Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) 418 mandates that labor costs must be allocated to cost objectives based on beneficial or causal relationships, with particular emphasis on accurate time reporting systems. The standard explicitly requires that “the method of allocating labor costs shall be based on the employee’s actual activity” – a requirement that becomes complex in remote environments where physical supervision is impossible. CAS 418 violations trigger automatic penalties under FAR 52.242-3, which imposes financial penalties equal to the questioned costs plus associated overhead burdens.

10 USC 2324, governing allowable costs under defense contracts, provides DCAA with enforcement teeth through its requirement that contractors maintain “adequate records to support claimed costs.” The statute’s implementing regulation at 48 CFR 31.201-2 specifically addresses timekeeping adequacy, mandating that labor records demonstrate “the correct distribution of time by project numbers, contract number or name, or other identifiers.” Remote work violations of this requirement result in cost disallowance and potential False Claims Act liability under 31 USC 3729-3733.

For contractors seeking comprehensive guidance on these complex requirements, understanding DCAA timekeeping requirements provides essential foundation knowledge for building compliant remote work systems.

Common Violation Patterns: Where Contractors Fail

DCAA’s 2024 enforcement surge has identified four recurring violation patterns in remote work timekeeping that contractors consistently underestimate:

1. Weekly Batch Entry Violations

Weekly batch entry violations represent the most common and expensive error. Despite clear regulatory prohibition, contractors continue allowing employees to log accumulated weekly hours in single sessions rather than daily contemporaneous recording. This practice violates FAR 31.201-4’s documentation requirements and typically results in complete cost disallowance for affected periods.

2. Inadequate Supervisory Verification

Traditional timekeeping relied on physical presence for supervisory confirmation of hours worked and project charges. Remote arrangements require enhanced verification protocols, yet contractors frequently maintain pre-pandemic approval processes. DCAA auditors systematically challenge remote work charges lacking documented supervisory validation of actual work performance and proper charge distribution.

Understanding the comprehensive framework outlined in DCAA compliance requirements for federal contracts helps contractors identify these verification gaps before they become costly violations. The agency’s focus on supervisory controls has intensified significantly in remote work environments.

3. Project Charge Accuracy Failures

Project charge accuracy failures emerge when remote workers lack real-time access to current project information or charge number updates. Contractors must maintain systems showing “the correct distribution of time by project numbers, contract number or name, or other identifiers for a particular assignment” regardless of work location. Remote employees often default to previously used charge numbers or estimate project distributions, creating systematic mischarging violations.

4. Audit Trail Deficiencies

Remote work environments must maintain the same audit trail integrity as traditional office settings. This requires electronic systems capable of tracking entry timing, modification history, and approval workflows. Contractors using basic timekeeping software or manual processes invariably fail DCAA’s audit trail requirements, resulting in questioned costs and system adequacy findings.

Step-by-Step Compliance Requirements for Remote Work

Step 1: Implement Daily Entry Enforcement Systems

Deploy timekeeping software with mandatory daily entry requirements and system-level controls preventing batch entries. The system must prevent backdating entries and require appropriate authorizations for any corrections. Configure automatic reminders and lockout mechanisms that prevent employees from entering time for previous days without supervisor authorization and documented business justification.

Contractors should reference the DCAA compliance checklist for time tracking to ensure their systems meet all technical requirements for daily entry enforcement.

Step 2: Establish Enhanced Supervisory Verification Protocols

Develop written procedures requiring supervisors to verify remote work completion through project deliverables, virtual meeting attendance, or other documented work products. Supervisors must approve timesheets only after confirming actual work performance matches reported hours and project charges. This verification must occur within 24 hours of the work period and be documented in the timekeeping system.

Step 3: Deploy Real-Time Project Information Systems

Implement systems providing remote employees immediate access to current project numbers, contract identifiers, and charge codes. Employees must record their time daily, capturing all hours worked, including direct and indirect labor with proper authorization. This requires integration between project management systems and timekeeping platforms to ensure remote workers charge current, active project elements.

Step 4: Create Comprehensive Audit Trail Documentation

Install enterprise-grade timekeeping systems maintaining complete audit trails including entry timestamps, modification history, approval workflows, and user authentication records. These records must include who made the entry, when it was made, and what changes were implemented. The system must prevent unauthorized modifications and maintain indefinite record retention for audit purposes.

Understanding the technical specifications outlined in DCAA timekeeping software overview and key requirements ensures contractors select systems capable of maintaining proper audit trails.

Step 5: Establish Remote Work Policy Documentation

Develop written remote work timekeeping policies addressing entry requirements, supervisory responsibilities, system access protocols, and violation consequences. These policies must align with existing accounting systems and be distributed to all personnel with remote work authorization. Regular training and acknowledgment documentation ensures consistent implementation across the organization.

Cost Analysis: Compliance Investment vs. Violation Penalties

The financial calculus for remote work timekeeping compliance strongly favors proactive investment over reactive violation management:

Compliance Costs:

• Annual maintenance: $75,000 – $150,000
• Implementation: $200,000 – $500,000
• Training and policy development: $25,000 – $75,000

Violation Penalties:

• Average DCAA penalties: $8.4 million per contractor
• Contract suspension costs: $50,000 – $200,000 per month
• Professional services for resolution: $300,000+
• Lost contracting opportunities: Millions annually

Contract suspension during violation resolution typically costs contractors $50,000 to $200,000 per month in lost revenue and overhead absorption. Noncompliance can result in debarment, suspension, terminated or voided contracts, being listed in the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), or civil and criminal penalties. Reputational damage from DCAA findings often eliminates future contracting opportunities worth millions annually.

Professional services costs for violation resolution including legal representation, accounting support, and system remediation typically exceed $300,000 for significant findings. These costs are unallowable and must be absorbed by contractors, creating additional financial pressure during already challenging audit periods.

Multi-State Federal Jurisdiction: Nationwide Enforcement Reality

DCAA’s remote work enforcement authority extends across all federal jurisdictions regardless of contractor location or employee work sites. This creates compliance challenges for contractors with distributed workforces spanning multiple states with varying labor laws and recording requirements. Federal regulations supersede state requirements, creating uniform national compliance obligations.

Contractors operating across state lines must ensure their timekeeping systems accommodate federal requirements while remaining compliant with applicable state wage and hour laws. This complexity increases when remote employees work from states with stricter documentation requirements than contractor home states. The solution requires systems capable of meeting the highest applicable standard across all jurisdictions.

Regional DCAA offices maintain consistent enforcement standards nationwide, eliminating contractor ability to shop favorable audit environments. The agency’s 2024 guidance emphasizes uniform application of remote work timekeeping standards regardless of regional variations in remote work adoption or contractor location.

Enforcement Reality: DCAA’s 2025 Strategic Focus

DCAA’s strategic plan for 2025 explicitly identifies remote work timekeeping as a high-risk audit area requiring enhanced scrutiny. This designation triggers automatic inclusion in contractor risk assessments and increased audit frequency for organizations with significant remote work populations. If a contractor fails to maintain DCAA-compliant timekeeping, the DCMA may take corrective action, including penalties.

The agency’s enforcement approach emphasizes proactive compliance verification rather than reactive violation discovery. This shift requires contractors to demonstrate system adequacy before problems emerge rather than remediate after audit findings. Contractors unable to provide real-time compliance evidence face immediate system adequacy challenges that can suspend contract performance pending resolution.

Key Enforcement Statistics:

• 73% of contractors with remote work arrangements undergo timekeeping reviews
• 340% increase from pre-pandemic audit frequency
• 67% lower violation rates for proactive compliance programs
• $8.4 million average penalty for major violations

Contractors maintaining proactive compliance programs demonstrate measurably better audit outcomes, with violation rates 67% lower than reactive organizations. This data supports the business case for immediate compliance investment rather than risk-based delay strategies that proved catastrophic for numerous contractors throughout 2024.

For contractors seeking to build comprehensive understanding of their compliance obligations, reviewing how to achieve DCAA compliance in timekeeping for government contractors provides the foundation necessary to navigate these complex requirements successfully. Additionally, understanding the keys to understanding DCAA compliance offers strategic insights into maintaining long-term compliance effectiveness.

The regulatory landscape demands immediate action from government contractors seeking to maintain their competitive position and avoid devastating compliance failures. DCAA’s enforcement focus on remote work timekeeping represents a permanent shift in audit methodology that requires corresponding evolution in contractor compliance approaches. Organizations must implement DCAA approved timekeeping systems that can withstand the agency’s intensified scrutiny while supporting efficient remote work operations.

Ready to Implement DCAA-Compliant Timekeeping?

Hour Timesheet provides the integrated compliance solution your organization needs to meet critical September deadlines. Our platform ensures accurate labor cost capture, maintains year-end documentation requirements, and provides the audit trails government auditors demand during fiscal year-end reviews.

Don’t risk missing crucial September compliance deadlines. Hour Timesheet’s proven system helps contractors maintain compliant practices while streamlining year-end preparation and submission processes.

Start Your Free Trial Today  see how Hour Timesheet ensures your organization stays DCAA-compliant and audit-ready