Loading...

Category Archives for DCAA Timekeeping

Floor Checks and Interviews: Preparing Employees for DCAA Spot Audits

DCAA floor check

DCAA auditors arrived unannounced at your facility at 9:30 AM requesting floor checks—direct observation and interviews with employees at their workstations. Your engineering staff confidently described their work but couldn’t explain their timesheet charge codes, your technicians said they “usually charge to whatever project seems right,” and your administrative staff admitted supervisors approve timesheets “automatically without really looking at them.” Two weeks later, DCAA issued findings questioning $420,000 in labor costs, citing systematic labor mischarging evidenced by employee statements demonstrating lack of understanding about proper time recording, inadequate supervisor review, and disconnection between actual work performed and timesheet charges. Here’s what contractors miss about floor checks: DCAA doesn’t just examine accounting records and system documentation—auditors interview employees directly to verify that timekeeping practices described in policies actually occur in daily operations, that workers understand charging requirements, and that supervisors perform meaningful review rather than perfunctory approval. Understanding how to prepare employees for floor check interviews isn’t about scripting responses or coaching evasion—it’s about ensuring your workforce genuinely understands timekeeping requirements, consistently follows proper procedures, and can articulate practices accurately because they actually perform compliant time recording every day.

The Legal Framework Governing DCAA Floor Checks and Interviews

Federal audit regulations grant DCAA comprehensive access to contractor facilities, records, and personnel as part of contract cost verification responsibilities. FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records—Negotiation, requires contractors to provide access to records and personnel supporting contract costs, with “personnel” explicitly including employee interviews enabling auditors to verify accounting system operation and cost accuracy through direct observation and questioning. This isn’t optional courtesy—it’s contractual obligation with floor check refusal constituting audit obstruction triggering serious compliance consequences.

The timekeeping adequacy standards under DFARS 252.242-7006 require accounting systems to provide accurate labor distribution supporting direct and indirect cost accumulation. DCAA verifies timekeeping adequacy not only through system documentation review but through floor checks observing actual timekeeping practices, interviewing employees about how they record time, questioning supervisors about approval procedures, and comparing employee descriptions to documented policies. When floor check observations contradict system documentation, DCAA concludes that accounting system deficiencies exist regardless of written procedure adequacy, because systems failing operational testing don’t meet regulatory standards. Understanding DCAA compliance requirements means recognizing that floor checks represent critical verification mechanism distinguishing theoretical compliance from operational reality.

FAR 31.201-2(d) mandates adequate accounting systems and internal controls ensuring cost accuracy, with adequacy assessed through both design evaluation and operational testing. Floor checks constitute operational testing par excellence—auditors observe whether employees actually record time daily, whether supervisors actually review timesheets meaningfully, whether charge codes actually match work performed, and whether practices actually align with documented procedures. System adequacy requires both proper design and effective operation, with floor checks specifically evaluating the operational dimension that document review cannot assess.

The critical consideration involves DCAA Contract Audit Manual 5-104, establishing floor check procedures including: observing employees at work locations, verifying activities match timesheet charges, interviewing employees about timekeeping practices, questioning supervisors about review procedures, and comparing observations to accounting system documentation. These procedures aren’t punitive gotcha tactics—they’re systematic verification methods ensuring labor costs billed to government reflect actual work performed rather than approximations, estimates, or convenient allocations disconnected from reality.

What Contractors Must Understand About Floor Check Challenges

Here’s what contractors miss about floor checks: employees articulate what they actually do, not what policies say they should do. DCAA compliance explained emphasizes that well-meaning employees honestly describing actual practices reveal compliance gaps when reality diverges from documented procedures. Your engineer explaining “I usually fill out my timesheet Friday afternoon based on what I remember from the week” has just told DCAA that daily time recording requirements aren’t followed. Your supervisor stating “I approve everyone’s timesheets Monday morning, takes about five minutes for the whole team” has revealed that meaningful review doesn’t occur. These honest descriptions of non-compliant practices create the audit findings that theoretical policy compliance cannot overcome.

The charge code understanding gap emerges when employees cannot explain what their timesheet codes represent, which contracts codes correspond to, or why they selected specific codes. This is where audits go sideways—employees perform legitimate work and accurately record hours but charge time based on convenience, supervisor direction, or arbitrary allocation rather than actual contract work performed. When DCAA asks “why did you charge to this code?” and receives responses like “that’s what my supervisor told me to use,” “I’m not sure, it was already selected in my timesheet,” or “I just pick whichever contract seems related,” auditors conclude that labor distribution doesn’t reflect actual work and therefore costs charged to government lack reliability supporting reimbursement.

The work description mismatch surfaces when employee descriptions of daily activities don’t align with projects charged on timesheets. Your software developer describing work on “the new user interface module” while timesheets show charging to “systems integration contract” reveals potential mischarging when contracts involve different scope. Your technician explaining work on “customer prototype assembly” while charging to “overhead” indicates improper direct/indirect classification. These disconnections between work performed and time charged demonstrate the labor mischarging that floor checks specifically target for identification.

The supervisor approval disconnect appears when supervisors cannot describe their approval process, explain what they review, or identify instances where they questioned timesheet accuracy. DCAA timekeeping requirements mandate meaningful supervisor review as essential control over labor accuracy, not rubber-stamp approval. When supervisors admit they “just approve everyone because they trust their employees,” “don’t really have time to review in detail,” or “approve in bulk without looking at individual charges,” they’ve described control failure allowing systematic mischarging regardless of whether individual employees intend proper charging.

The contemporaneous recording failure manifests when employees describe completing timesheets weekly, bi-weekly, or from memory rather than recording actual daily activity. Daily time recording isn’t bureaucratic preference—it’s regulatory requirement ensuring accuracy that memory-based reconstruction cannot provide. When employees explain “I keep a notepad and enter everything Friday,” “I usually remember what I did and fill it in later,” or “I know roughly how I spend my time so I allocate accordingly,” they’ve admitted violating daily recording requirements that create the basis for questioned labor costs.

The documentation understanding gap emerges when employees cannot explain what support they maintain for time charged, whether they retain task orders or work assignments, or how they demonstrate time was charged correctly. While employees aren’t expected to maintain audit files, understanding that work assignments, emails directing tasks, project documentation, and other records support timesheet accuracy demonstrates awareness that time charging requires substantiation beyond personal assertion.

The training deficiency becomes apparent when employees reveal they’ve never received timekeeping training, don’t understand why accurate charging matters, or weren’t informed about compliance requirements. Untrained employees cannot comply with requirements they don’t understand, with training gaps creating systematic non-compliance across your workforce that floor checks expose through employee interviews revealing fundamental misunderstanding about basic timekeeping obligations.

Five Essential Steps for Floor Check Preparation and Employee Readiness

Step 1: Implement Comprehensive Timekeeping Training for All Employees

Develop structured timekeeping training program covering: daily recording requirements explaining why time must be recorded each day, charge code selection guidance describing how to identify proper codes, direct versus indirect cost distinction clarifying what work charges to contracts versus overhead, timesheet accuracy importance explaining government reimbursement reliance on accurate labor distribution, and correction procedures establishing how to fix errors. Deliver training to all employees including new hire orientation, annual refresher sessions, and targeted training when compliance issues emerge.

Create practical training materials using real-world scenarios relevant to your business including example situations showing proper charge code selection, common charging mistakes to avoid, and decision trees helping employees classify ambiguous activities. Avoid abstract policy recitation in favor of concrete examples employees can apply to actual work situations. Include supervisor-specific training addressing approval responsibilities, review procedures, and questioning techniques identifying potential charging errors before approval.

Implement training documentation requiring employee acknowledgment confirming they received training, understand requirements, and agree to follow procedures. Maintain training records demonstrating compliance commitment while supporting audit defense when DCAA questions whether employees were adequately instructed about timekeeping obligations. Periodic refresher training addresses compliance drift and reinforces requirements that daily routine may obscure.

Step 2: Deploy Clear Charge Code Structure with Employee-Accessible Guidance

Establish logical charge code structure that employees can understand and navigate including clear code naming conventions, organized hierarchies grouping related codes, and intuitive selection processes minimizing confusion. Avoid cryptic code numbers without meaningful description—”Contract-ABC-Labor” communicates purpose better than “1234567” requiring reference lookup. Provide employees readily accessible charge code reference materials including code listings with descriptions, project scope summaries helping employees identify appropriate codes, and contact information for charging questions.

Implement automated charge code validation preventing common mistakes including controls blocking invalid codes, warnings flagging unusual charges requiring confirmation, and default code logic suggesting appropriate selections based on employee role and project assignments. Technology supporting proper charging reduces errors while demonstrating organizational commitment to accuracy that DCAA recognizes during floor checks when employees describe user-friendly systems supporting compliance rather than fighting confusing structures.

Create charging guidance addressing common scenarios including: how to charge time spanning multiple projects, how to classify meetings and administrative time, how to handle training and professional development, when travel charges directly to contracts versus indirect costs, and how to address rework or correction of prior deliverables. Scenario-based guidance provides answers to questions employees actually encounter, preventing improper charging guesses when employees lack clear direction.

Step 3: Establish Meaningful Supervisor Review and Approval Procedures

Develop detailed supervisor approval procedures requiring specific review activities including: validating hours align with employee schedules and known availability, confirming charge codes match assigned project work, questioning unusual patterns or unexpected charges, reviewing for proper direct versus indirect classification, and documenting approval with dated electronic signature or written certification. Train supervisors that approval represents management certification of accuracy, not administrative formality, with supervisors accountable for labor charging accuracy on approved timesheets.

Implement approval quality monitoring assessing supervisor compliance with review procedures through: periodic sampling of approved timesheets evaluating approval thoroughness, management interviews with supervisors about their review process, and exception reporting identifying supervisors with concerning approval patterns like identical timesheet distributions suggesting insufficient scrutiny. Address identified approval deficiencies through targeted retraining, management counseling, or procedural corrections preventing systematic review failures that floor checks would expose.

Create supervisor approval tools supporting effective review including reports showing employee historical charging patterns enabling identification of unusual changes, project status summaries providing context for evaluating time distribution reasonableness, and automated alerts flagging potential issues requiring closer examination. These tools demonstrate organizational investment in approval effectiveness while enabling supervisors to perform meaningful review efficiently rather than treating thoroughness and efficiency as competing objectives.

Step 4: Conduct Regular Internal Floor Check Simulations

Perform periodic internal floor checks mimicking DCAA procedures including: randomly selecting employees for interviews, observing work activities and comparing to timesheet charges, asking employees about charging practices and code selection, questioning supervisors about approval procedures, and comparing employee responses to documented policies. Conduct simulations without advance warning preventing artificial compliance during mock exercises that doesn’t reflect normal operations.

Document simulation findings identifying compliance gaps, employee misunderstandings, procedural deviations, or training deficiencies requiring correction. Treat simulation findings as opportunities for improvement rather than employee punishment, creating learning environment where mistakes discovered internally enable correction before DCAA identifies problems. Implement corrective actions addressing simulation findings including targeted retraining, procedure clarifications, system improvements, or control enhancements.

Brief employees on floor check purpose and expectations without scripting responses or coaching evasion. Explain that DCAA conducts floor checks verifying timekeeping procedures operate as documented, that employees should answer questions honestly about actual practices, and that candid responses help identify improvements supporting both compliance and operational effectiveness. Emphasize that floor checks aren’t investigations targeting employee punishment but verification procedures ensuring cost accuracy benefiting everyone through efficient audit processes and maintained contract relationships.

Step 5: Create Comprehensive Documentation Supporting Timekeeping Practices

Maintain detailed documentation demonstrating compliant timekeeping operations including: written policies describing recording requirements, approval procedures, charge code guidance, and correction protocols; training records documenting employee instruction and acknowledgment; timesheet records with approval evidence and dates; supervisor review documentation showing comments and concerns raised; and monitoring reports demonstrating systematic oversight. Organized documentation enables efficient floor check support while demonstrating organizational discipline that DCAA recognizes as compliance indicator.

Develop work assignment documentation practices ensuring employees maintain records supporting time charged including: task assignments from supervisors documenting directed work, project correspondence describing activities performed, deliverable records connecting work to contracts, and meeting documentation showing time spent in project activities. While employees shouldn’t maintain formal audit files, basic work records support accurate charging and enable verification that time distribution reflects actual activities.

Implement continuous documentation improvement addressing gaps or deficiencies identified through internal reviews, simulation findings, or operational challenges. Treat documentation as living compliance infrastructure requiring regular updates ensuring accuracy and relevance rather than static artifacts created once and never modified. Current, accurate documentation supporting actual practices provides foundation for successful floor checks demonstrating genuine compliance rather than theoretical policy creation.

The Investment in Floor Check Preparation

Implementing comprehensive floor check preparation program costs between $8,000 and $30,000 for small to mid-sized contractors depending on workforce size and training infrastructure requirements. This includes training development and delivery, procedure documentation, simulation conduct, and system improvements. Annual maintenance costs typically run $3,000 to $10,000 for ongoing training, periodic simulations, and documentation updates.

Let me show you the value: contractors with well-prepared employees pass floor checks demonstrating operational compliance supporting efficient audits with minimal findings. They avoid the substantial questioned costs that result when floor checks reveal systematic labor mischarging, inadequate supervision, or policy-practice disconnections. They maintain positive DCAA relationships through demonstrated compliance commitment that auditors recognize when employees accurately describe compliant practices.

Contractors with unprepared employees face massive questioned labor costs when floor check interviews reveal systematic non-compliance, experience accounting system disapproval when floor checks demonstrate control failures, and suffer audit inefficiency through extended verification procedures when initial observations raise reliability concerns. They incur crisis training costs implementing rushed preparation after floor check findings, though retrospective training cannot fix historical compliance failures that floor checks already documented.

Understanding Floor Check Scope Across Audit Types

DCAA conducts floor checks during various audit types including: accounting system audits verifying timekeeping adequacy, incurred cost audits testing labor distribution accuracy, forward pricing audits evaluating estimating system reliability, and defective pricing audits investigating cost or pricing data accuracy. Your floor check preparation must support all audit contexts, with employee readiness representing foundational compliance capability applicable across DCAA’s audit portfolio rather than isolated requirement for specific audit types.

Floor check frequency and intensity vary based on contractor compliance history, audit risk assessment, and specific audit objectives. Contractors with strong compliance records may experience brief, targeted floor checks, while those with deficiency histories face extensive verification including large employee samples, detailed questioning, and comprehensive observation. Building genuine compliance rather than superficial preparation remains the only reliable strategy across varying floor check scenarios.

Your Path to Floor Check Success

The floor check landscape rewards contractors who invest in genuine workforce compliance through comprehensive training, meaningful procedures, and systematic monitoring rather than superficial preparation hoping employees improvise acceptable responses. DCAA evaluates employee responses against documented procedures and regulatory requirements, with credibility depending on consistency between employee descriptions and actual practices.

For contractors seeking floor check preparation support, Hour Timesheet provides intuitive platforms employees understand and supervisors can effectively review, creating the user-friendly infrastructure supporting compliant operations that floor checks verify. Our systems generate approval documentation and audit trails demonstrating control operation when DCAA conducts verification procedures.

Your workforce represents your compliance front line during floor checks. Invest in training, procedures, and systems ensuring employees genuinely understand and consistently follow timekeeping requirements that floor check interviews will test.

Additional Resources

Related Hour Timesheet Articles:

Official Regulatory References:

 

Internal controls and DCAA compliance

Internal controls and DCAA compliance

Your company passed its initial DCAA accounting system audit three years ago, but during this year’s incurred cost audit, auditors discovered that supervisors routinely approved timesheets without review, accounting staff processed journal entries without supporting documentation, and unallowable costs accumulated in indirect pools without identification or exclusion. DCAA issued a significant deficiency determination questioning $680,000 in indirect costs, citing inadequate internal controls allowing systematic cost misclassification and management override of accounting procedures. Here’s what contractors miss about internal controls: establishing compliant accounting systems represents only the foundation—maintaining control effectiveness requires ongoing discipline through documented procedures, systematic monitoring, management oversight, and corrective action processes ensuring controls function as designed rather than degrading into informal practices that look compliant on paper but fail in operation. Understanding how to design, implement, and maintain effective internal controls isn’t about creating bureaucracy—it’s about building systematic safeguards preventing the cost accounting errors, timesheet manipulation, unallowable cost charging, and allocation mistakes that transform compliant systems into deficient operations triggering questioned costs and business system disapproval.

The Legal Framework Governing Internal Control Requirements

Federal acquisition regulations establish specific internal control expectations ensuring contractor accounting systems produce reliable cost data supporting government contract billing. FAR 31.201-2(d) requires contractors to maintain adequate internal controls and accounting systems for accumulating and billing costs, with adequacy encompassing both system design and operational effectiveness. This provision makes internal controls a regulatory requirement rather than optional best practice—your accounting system must include controls preventing cost misclassification, detecting errors, and ensuring compliance with cost accounting standards.

The business system criteria under DFARS 252.242-7006 explicitly require contractors to maintain adequate internal control procedures providing reasonable assurance that costs are properly accumulated, segregated, and allocated. These requirements extend beyond basic accounting design to encompass control procedures including: segregation of duties preventing single individuals from controlling entire transaction cycles, management review and approval of significant transactions and adjustments, reconciliation procedures detecting discrepancies, and monitoring mechanisms ensuring ongoing control effectiveness. Understanding DCAA compliance requirements means recognizing that system adequacy depends equally on control design and control operation.

DFARS 252.242-7006(c)(7) specifically mandates that accounting systems exclude unallowable costs from billing, invoicing, and indirect rate calculations. This requirement necessitates internal controls systematically identifying costs FAR prohibits, segregating unallowable amounts in separate accounts, and preventing their inclusion in government contract charges through both direct billing and indirect allocation. Control failures allowing unallowable cost charging represent significant deficiencies regardless of dollar magnitude, as they demonstrate fundamental system inadequacy in distinguishing allowable from prohibited expenses.

The critical consideration involves FAR 42.302(a)(12), assigning DCAA responsibility for examining and evaluating contractor internal control systems as part of accounting system audits. DCAA doesn’t simply verify that control procedures exist—auditors test whether controls operate effectively by examining transactions, interviewing personnel, observing processes, and evaluating whether actual practices align with documented procedures. Control designs failing operational testing trigger deficiency findings even when written procedures appear adequate, because paper controls providing no actual protection fail regulatory adequacy standards.

What Contractors Must Understand About Internal Control Challenges

Here’s what contractors miss about internal controls: establishing procedures in written policies doesn’t ensure those procedures operate effectively in daily practice. DCAA compliance explained emphasizes that DCAA evaluates control effectiveness through operational testing examining whether employees actually follow procedures, whether management actually reviews transactions, and whether monitoring actually detects problems. Your comprehensive accounting manual means nothing when employees bypass procedures, managers rubber-stamp approvals without review, and monitoring consists of cursory year-end reconciliations discovering problems too late for correction.

The timesheet approval breakdown represents the most common internal control failure when supervisors approve timesheets without reviewing time distribution accuracy, validating charge codes, or verifying hours worked. This is where audits go sideways—contractors implement electronic approval workflows requiring supervisor sign-off but supervisors treat approval as administrative formality, clicking “approve all” without examining individual timesheets for accuracy, reasonableness, or compliance. When DCAA interviews supervisors who cannot explain their approval procedures, describe what they review, or identify concerns they’ve raised about timesheet accuracy, auditors conclude that timesheet controls exist only nominally without providing actual oversight preventing labor mischarging. DCAA timekeeping requirements mandate meaningful supervisor review as essential control over labor cost accuracy, not mere electronic workflow completion.

The segregation of duties violation emerges when small contractor size concentrates accounting functions in single individuals controlling entire transaction cycles without independent review. The same person who approves purchases, processes invoices, records costs, and reconciles accounts possesses ability to manipulate transactions, conceal errors, and override controls without detection. While small contractors cannot achieve the segregation possible in large organizations, they must implement compensating controls including enhanced management review, periodic surprise audits, and systematic reconciliation procedures providing oversight that segregation would otherwise offer.

The journal entry control weakness manifests when accounting staff post adjusting entries, reclassifications, or corrections without supporting documentation, management approval, or explanatory notation describing entry purpose and authorization. Unrestricted journal entry capability enables manipulation of contract costs, indirect pools, and allocation bases that audits discover through transaction testing. When DCAA selects random journal entries for examination and discovers entries lacking supporting documentation or approval, auditors question whether accounting system controls prevent cost manipulation or whether management possesses adequate visibility into accounting adjustments affecting government contract charges.

The unallowable cost control failure occurs when contractors lack systematic procedures identifying prohibited costs at transaction recording, resulting in unallowable expenses accumulating in indirect pools and allocating to government contracts through overhead rates. Without proactive identification procedures, contractors discover unallowable costs only during year-end incurred cost preparation or DCAA audits—too late to prevent improper charging through months of billing. Effective controls require front-end identification at accounts payable processing, expense report review, and payroll administration, with automatic segregation into dedicated accounts excluding amounts from indirect pools before rate calculations occur.

The monitoring inadequacy becomes apparent when contractors lack systematic procedures detecting control failures, identifying policy violations, or measuring compliance performance. Controls degrade over time without monitoring—employees develop workarounds, managers become complacent, procedures drift from written policies, and problems accumulate undetected until external audits reveal systematic control breakdowns. Effective monitoring requires periodic management reviews examining transaction samples, compliance metrics tracking control performance, and corrective action processes addressing identified problems before they escalate into significant deficiencies.

The documentation insufficiency affects control effectiveness when contractors cannot demonstrate that controls operated as designed because monitoring records, approval evidence, review documentation, and exception reports don’t exist or aren’t retained. DCAA evaluates controls through evidence examination—if you cannot produce timesheet approval records, reconciliation documentation, unallowable cost reviews, or monitoring reports, auditors conclude controls didn’t operate regardless of verbal assertions about procedures followed.

Five Essential Steps for Effective Internal Control Implementation

Step 1: Design Comprehensive Control Framework Addressing Key Risk Areas

Develop systematic internal control framework identifying key risk areas requiring protection including: labor charging accuracy through timesheet controls, cost classification through chart of account controls, unallowable cost exclusion through identification procedures, indirect rate accuracy through allocation controls, and billing accuracy through invoice review procedures. For each risk area, design specific controls addressing the risk through preventive measures stopping problems before occurrence or detective measures identifying problems requiring correction.

Document control procedures with detailed descriptions explaining what control activity occurs, who performs the control, when control operates, what evidence the control creates, and how exceptions are resolved. This documentation provides the control foundation supporting both employee understanding of required procedures and DCAA verification that controls are properly designed. Generic procedure statements like “supervisors approve timesheets” provide inadequate control documentation compared to detailed descriptions: “Supervisors review each employee’s timesheet weekly, validating time distribution reasonableness against known project assignments, questioning unusual charge codes or hour patterns, and documenting review through electronic approval with comments explaining any concerns identified.”

Implement control stratification applying stronger controls to higher-risk transactions while maintaining reasonable efficiency for routine activities. Require enhanced approval for large-dollar transactions, unusual expenses, or first-time vendors while streamlining routine purchases within established parameters. This risk-based approach focuses control resources where protection provides maximum value rather than treating all transactions identically regardless of risk profile.

Step 2: Establish Clear Segregation of Duties with Compensating Controls

Create responsibility matrix documenting which positions perform transaction authorization, recording, custody, and reconciliation functions, ensuring no single individual controls complete transaction cycles without independent oversight. Separate timesheet approval from payroll processing, purchase authorization from invoice payment, and cost recording from account reconciliation, preventing concentration of incompatible functions enabling fraud or error concealment.

Implement compensating controls addressing segregation limitations that small organization size creates. Deploy enhanced management review examining transaction details when segregation proves impractical, conduct periodic surprise audits testing control effectiveness, engage external resources for independent reconciliations or control assessments, and rotate responsibilities periodically preventing entrenchment of informal workarounds or manipulation schemes. Document compensating controls with same rigor as standard segregation, demonstrating to DCAA that you recognize segregation limitations and implemented alternative protections.

Establish management oversight procedures requiring executive review of significant transactions, unusual adjustments, or policy exceptions even when normal segregation exists. Management oversight provides additional control layer catching problems that transaction-level controls might miss while demonstrating organizational commitment to control effectiveness that DCAA considers when evaluating overall control environment adequacy.

Step 3: Deploy Systematic Monitoring and Exception Reporting Mechanisms

Implement automated exception reporting identifying control violations, policy deviations, or unusual patterns requiring investigation including: late or missing timesheet approvals, charge code usage outside normal patterns, journal entries exceeding thresholds without approval, unallowable cost account activity, and allocation base variances from expected amounts. Configure systems generating exception reports automatically and distributing to responsible managers, forcing proactive attention to potential control problems rather than relying on periodic manual reviews that might miss issues.

Establish periodic management review procedures requiring systematic control assessment including: monthly timesheet control reviews examining approval timeliness and supervisor comments, quarterly unallowable cost assessments verifying identification procedures operated effectively, semi-annual segregation reviews confirming responsibilities remain properly separated, and annual comprehensive control effectiveness evaluations assessing whether controls achieved intended objectives. Document these reviews with formal reports, management responses to identified issues, and corrective action plans addressing deficiencies, creating the monitoring evidence demonstrating ongoing control oversight.

Deploy compliance metrics measuring control performance including: timesheet approval completion rates, average approval turnaround time, exception frequency by type, unallowable cost identification percentage, and reconciliation completion timeliness. Establish performance targets for each metric, monitor actual performance against targets, and implement corrective action when performance falls below acceptable levels. These metrics provide objective control effectiveness measurement supporting both internal management and DCAA assessment of control adequacy.

Step 4: Implement Rigorous Timesheet Review and Approval Procedures

Develop detailed timesheet approval procedures requiring supervisors to validate: hours worked align with known schedules and project assignments, charge codes match authorized contract work, time distribution appears reasonable compared to project status and deliverable progress, unusual patterns receive explanation and justification, and corrections follow established procedures with documentation supporting changes. Train supervisors that approval represents certification of accuracy and reasonableness rather than administrative formality, with supervisors accountable for labor charging accuracy on timesheets they approve.

Configure timekeeping systems requiring explanatory comments when supervisors identify concerns, make corrections, or approve timesheets containing unusual patterns. These comments create the approval documentation demonstrating supervisors actively reviewed timesheets rather than mechanically approving submissions without examination. Implement escalation procedures requiring management review when significant timesheet issues emerge, preventing supervisors from resolving material problems without appropriate oversight.

Establish timesheet approval monitoring including weekly reports showing approval status, turnaround times, and supervisors with chronic approval delays indicating inadequate control operation. Implement quarterly timesheet control assessments where management examines sample timesheets evaluating approval quality, reviewing supervisor comments, and assessing whether approval procedures operate as designed. This monitoring provides ongoing verification that timesheet controls remain effective rather than degrading into pro forma approvals lacking actual review.

Step 5: Create Comprehensive Control Documentation and Evidence Retention

Maintain detailed control documentation including written procedures, approval evidence, reconciliation workpapers, exception reports, monitoring reviews, and corrective action records. Organize documentation logically with clear filing systems enabling efficient retrieval during audits, management reviews, or operational needs. Inadequate documentation undermines otherwise effective controls by preventing verification that controls operated as designed.

Implement document retention policies ensuring control evidence preservation for adequate periods supporting both operational needs and audit requirements. Retain timesheet approvals, purchase authorizations, journal entry support, reconciliations, and monitoring reports for periods matching contract record retention requirements, preventing the control evidence gaps that create DCAA audit challenges when historical records cannot be produced.

Develop control narrative documentation describing your internal control framework, specific control procedures, monitoring mechanisms, and control effectiveness assessment results. This narrative provides comprehensive control environment description supporting both management understanding and DCAA evaluation, demonstrating systematic control approach rather than ad hoc procedures developed reactively to address individual problems.

The Investment in Effective Internal Controls

Implementing comprehensive internal control framework meeting DCAA standards costs between $20,000 and $70,000 for small to mid-sized contractors depending on organization size, system complexity, and current control adequacy. This includes control design, procedure documentation, system configuration, training, and monitoring implementation. Annual maintenance costs typically run $10,000 to $25,000 for ongoing monitoring, control testing, documentation updates, and continuous improvement.

Let me show you the value: contractors with effective internal controls prevent the cost accounting errors, timesheet manipulation, and unallowable cost charging that create questioned costs during DCAA audits. They demonstrate accounting system adequacy through operational control effectiveness supporting efficient audit processes with minimal findings. They maintain positive DCAA relationships through demonstrated fiscal responsibility and control discipline that auditors recognize and respect.

Contractors with inadequate internal controls face substantial questioned costs when control failures allow systematic cost misclassification, labor mischarging, or unallowable cost accumulation. They experience accounting system disapproval requiring corrective action before new contract awards, creating business development barriers and customer relationship problems. They incur crisis remediation costs implementing emergency control improvements under DCAA pressure, exceeding systematic control development investments while still risking inadequate solutions prolonging deficiency status.

Understanding Internal Control Requirements Across Contract Types

Internal control requirements apply uniformly to all government contractors maintaining cost-reimbursement contracts, time-and-materials contracts, or other arrangements requiring cost visibility and verification. Fixed-price contractors face lighter control expectations since government doesn’t reimburse actual costs, but contractors mixing contract types must maintain comprehensive controls supporting cost-reimbursement work regardless of contract portfolio composition.

DFARS accounting system requirements establishing explicit internal control standards apply specifically to DoD contractors, while civilian agency contracts follow FAR provisions with generally similar expectations but potentially different emphasis areas. Your internal controls must satisfy applicable regulatory standards for your customer agencies, with DoD requirements typically representing the most stringent baseline providing adequate foundation for most civilian agency needs.

Your Path to Internal Control Excellence

The internal control landscape rewards contractors who invest in systematic control design, operational implementation, and ongoing monitoring rather than treating controls as compliance checkbox satisfied through policy documentation alone. DCAA evaluates control effectiveness through operational testing examining actual practices, with adequacy depending on demonstrated control operation rather than procedure existence.

For contractors seeking internal control compliance, Hour Timesheet provides control-enabled timekeeping platforms with built-in approval workflows, exception reporting, audit trails, and monitoring capabilities supporting the timesheet controls that represent critical internal control foundation. Our systems create the approval documentation and monitoring evidence demonstrating control operation during DCAA assessments.

Your accounting system deserves internal controls providing actual protection rather than paper procedures lacking operational effectiveness. Build control infrastructure ensuring compliance through systematic operation rather than hoping documentation satisfies audit requirements.

Additional Resources

Related Hour Timesheet Articles:

Official Regulatory References:

Stop Searching for QuickBooks Time Support A Better Time‑Tracking Solution Is Here

If you’ve landed here because you’re searching for QuickBooks Time support, you’re not alone. Thousands of businesses are hitting the same wall—long wait times, limited support options, confusing workflows, and a growing sense that the tool they rely on just isn’t built with their needs in mind.

Here’s the good news:
You don’t have to stay stuck.

Hour Timesheet offers a simpler, more reliable, and more human alternative to QuickBooks Time—backed by responsive support, intuitive workflows, and compliance‑ready features that actually make your job easier.

⭐ Why Users Are Actively Searching for QuickBooks Time Support

Businesses are increasingly frustrated with:

  • Slow or unhelpful support responses
  • Complicated time‑tracking workflows
  • Sync issues with QuickBooks Online
  • Confusing user interfaces
  • Limited compliance features for GovCon and audit‑heavy industries

These pain points are exactly why so many users are Googling phrases like:

  • “QuickBooks Time support”
  • “QuickBooks Time not syncing”
  • “QuickBooks Time alternative”
  • “QuickBooks Time customer service”

These are high‑intent users—people who are ready to switch if they can find a solution that actually works.

🚀 Hour Timesheet: The Better, Easier, More Supportive Alternative

Hour Timesheet was built for businesses that need accuracy, compliance, and simplicity—without the headaches.

1. Real, Responsive Customer Support

When you need help, you get a human.
Not a chatbot. Not a 72‑hour wait. Not a maze of support articles.

Our team responds quickly, clearly, and with the goal of solving your issue—not bouncing you around.

👉 Explore our support resources:
Hour Timesheet Knowledge Base

2. Seamless QuickBooks Online Integration

Hour Timesheet integrates cleanly with QuickBooks Online, making payroll and invoicing straightforward.

If you’re transitioning from QuickBooks Desktop, we’ve already helped hundreds of businesses make the switch smoothly.

👉 Learn how the integration works:
Exporting Time to QuickBooks Online

3. Built‑In Compliance for Government Contractors

QuickBooks Time simply wasn’t designed for GovCon.

Hour Timesheet includes:

  • DCAA‑friendly audit trails
  • Required hours rules
  • Supervisor approvals
  • Charge code controls
  • Configurable reporting periods

If compliance matters to you, Hour Timesheet is the tool that actually supports your workflow—not one you have to fight against.

4. Simple, Intuitive Time Entry

Your employees shouldn’t need training to enter their time.

Hour Timesheet is clean, fast, and easy to use—whether your team is in the office, remote, or in the field.

🔍 SEO Comparison: Hour Timesheet vs. QuickBooks Time

Feature / Experience QuickBooks Time Hour Timesheet
Customer Support Slow, inconsistent Fast, human, responsive
Ease of Use Often confusing Clean and intuitive
GovCon Compliance Limited Built‑in, audit‑ready
QuickBooks Online Sync Known issues Smooth and reliable
Pricing Higher for many teams Affordable and predictable
Setup Can be complex Guided onboarding

This is exactly why users searching for QuickBooks Time support often end up switching to Hour Timesheet.

🧭 Ready to Make the Switch?

If you’re tired of searching for QuickBooks Time support, it’s time to choose a tool that actually supports you.

CTA #1: Start a Free Trial

Experience Hour Timesheet for yourself—no credit card required.
👉 Start Your Free Trial

CTA #2: Talk to a Real Human

Want to ask questions before switching?
👉 Schedule a quick call with our team and we’ll walk you through everything.

💬 Final Thoughts

You don’t need to settle for slow support, confusing workflows, or unreliable syncing. Hour Timesheet gives you a modern, compliant, easy‑to‑use time‑tracking solution backed by the kind of customer support you wish you were getting from QuickBooks Time.

Stop searching for QuickBooks Time support.
Start using a tool that supports you.

The 10-Step Guide to Incurred Cost Submissions (ICS)

Incurred cost submission requirements

Your company submitted its annual incurred cost proposal six months late with incomplete schedules, unsupported indirect rate calculations, and missing audit trail documentation. DCAA rejected the submission as inadequate, suspending indirect rate negotiations for all your cost-reimbursement contracts while accumulated billing reserves exceeded $1.2 million—cash you legitimately earned but cannot invoice until DCAA completes rate audits that won’t start until you fix your submission. Here’s what contractors miss about incurred cost submissions: the annual ICE (Incurred Cost Electronically) filing isn’t optional paperwork you can delay or simplify—it’s a contractual obligation with specific regulatory requirements, mandatory schedules, and strict adequacy standards that determine whether DCAA will audit your rates, whether you can bill your full indirect costs, and whether cash flow from cost-reimbursement contracts supports business operations or creates financial strain through billing holds. Understanding how to prepare, document, and submit compliant incurred cost proposals isn’t about satisfying bureaucratic process—it’s about proving actual costs incurred during contract performance, supporting final indirect rate determinations enabling invoice settlement, and maintaining the government relationship that cost-reimbursement contracting requires through transparent financial reporting demonstrating fiscal responsibility.

The Legal Framework Governing Incurred Cost Submission Requirements

Federal contract clauses establish specific obligations for contractors to submit annual incurred cost proposals supporting final indirect rate determination. FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, requires contractors to submit final indirect cost rate proposals within six months after their fiscal year end, using specified formats and including comprehensive schedules supporting rate calculations. This clause appears in virtually all cost-reimbursement contracts, making annual submissions contractual obligations rather than voluntary filings—missing deadlines or submitting inadequate packages violates contract terms with consequences including payment withholding and potential default.

The submission adequacy standards under FAR 42.705-1(b) establish that incurred cost proposals must include specific schedules organized in prescribed formats covering: indirect cost rate computation, general and administrative expenses, overhead allocation, direct contract costs, and supporting documentation enabling DCAA verification. DCAA developed detailed adequacy checklists contractors must satisfy before submissions qualify for audit, with inadequate submissions returned unprocessed regardless of contractor effort creating them. Understanding DCAA compliance requirements means recognizing that compliance involves both timely submission and adequate content meeting specific schedule and documentation requirements.

The electronic submission mandate under DCAA policy requires contractors to submit incurred cost proposals through the Department of Defense’s designated submission system—currently the Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) portal using the ICE module. Paper submissions are no longer accepted, with electronic filing mandatory regardless of contractor size or submission complexity. Technical compliance with electronic submission procedures, including proper file formats, required schedules, and system navigation, becomes a compliance requirement itself beyond the substantive rate calculation and documentation standards.

Cost Accounting Standard 406 governs cost accounting period requirements, establishing that contractors must consistently use fiscal periods for accumulating costs, maintain consistency in period definitions across accounting functions, and establish indirect rates covering defined accounting periods. Your incurred cost submission must reflect costs actually incurred during your fiscal year, calculated using consistent accounting period definitions that align with your disclosed practices and general ledger structure. Period inconsistencies—mixing calendar and fiscal years, charging costs to wrong periods, or calculating rates using mismatched cost and base periods—create fundamental CAS violations that DCAA flags during adequacy review.

What Contractors Must Understand About Incurred Cost Submission Challenges

Here’s what contractors miss about ICS preparation: creating adequate submissions requires year-round accounting discipline maintaining compliant cost accumulation, not year-end heroics trying to reconstruct rates from inadequate records. Your six-month deadline after fiscal year-end provides time for submission preparation and review, not time for implementing accounting systems, identifying unallowable costs, or developing indirect rate methodologies that should have existed during the year. Contractors attempting ICS preparation without proper accounting infrastructure discover they cannot create adequate submissions from inadequate source data, regardless of effort invested.

The schedule completeness problem creates immediate adequacy failures when contractors submit partial packages missing required schedules, providing summary data without supporting detail, or omitting documentation DCAA needs for verification. DCAA compliance explained emphasizes that DCAA’s adequacy checklist is non-negotiable—missing even one required schedule triggers inadequacy determination and submission return. The standard submission includes over fifteen specific schedules covering direct costs, indirect pools, allocation bases, contractor organization, facilities capital employed, and supporting reconciliations. Contractors treating ICS like tax returns focused only on rate calculations without comprehensive schedule packages guarantee inadequacy findings.

The unallowable cost identification challenge surfaces when contractors lack systematic procedures for identifying costs FAR prohibits charging to government contracts. This is where audits go sideways—contractors accumulate entertainment, lobbying, excessive compensation, and other unallowable costs in indirect pools, then submit rate proposals including prohibited expenses expecting DCAA to identify exclusions. However, DCAA expects contractors to identify and exclude unallowable costs before submission, with detailed schedules showing amounts excluded and explanatory notes supporting exclusion decisions. Submissions mixing allowable and unallowable costs without clear segregation face adequacy questions even when total rate impacts might be immaterial.

The allocation base accuracy problem emerges when contractors calculate indirect rates using allocation bases that don’t match actual costs accumulated in accounting systems or that fail to properly exclude unallowable direct costs, IR&D, and other adjustments. Your overhead rate denominator must equal your actual direct labor base excluding unallowable direct costs and other required adjustments, reconciled to general ledger accounts with audit trail documentation supporting base calculations. When allocation bases in ICS submissions don’t reconcile to general ledger accounts or include amounts requiring exclusion, DCAA questions whether rates accurately reflect cost accounting system results or whether submissions contain calculation errors creating unreliable rates.

The reconciliation inadequacy becomes apparent when contractors cannot demonstrate clear connection between rate proposal schedules and audited financial statements or general ledger trial balances. DCAA expects comprehensive reconciliations showing how ICS cost pools tie to specific general ledger accounts, how allocation bases reconcile to labor cost accumulations, and how submission amounts match audited financial data with explanations for any differences. Missing reconciliations suggest inadequate cost accumulation and potential rate calculation errors that prevent DCAA from accepting submissions as adequate for audit.

The supporting documentation gaps manifest when contractors submit rate schedules without underlying records supporting calculations including payroll summaries, trial balances, unallowable cost analyses, contract listings, and organizational charts. DCAA adequacy standards require specific supporting exhibits enabling verification without extensive additional information requests. Contractors submitting bare calculations without documentation create the adequacy failures that delay audit processes even when rate calculations might be accurate.

Ten Essential Steps for Successful Incurred Cost Submissions

Step 1: Establish Year-Round Compliant Cost Accumulation

Implement accounting systems maintaining compliant cost accumulation throughout the fiscal year rather than attempting retrospective reconstruction for ICS preparation. Configure chart of accounts with adequate cost segregation between direct and indirect costs, separate general ledger accounts for each indirect pool, and dedicated accounts for unallowable costs excluded from government contract billing. DCAA timekeeping requirements apply year-round, with daily time recording, proper charge codes, and supervisor approval supporting the labor distribution underlying your indirect rate calculations.

Conduct monthly indirect rate calculations using the same methodology you’ll apply in year-end ICS submissions, ensuring cost accumulation, pool definitions, and allocation bases remain consistent throughout the year. Monthly discipline identifies potential issues early when correction remains feasible, rather than discovering problems during year-end closing when options become limited and time pressure intensifies.

Step 2: Maintain Systematic Unallowable Cost Identification Throughout the Year

Deploy procedures identifying unallowable costs at initial recording including accounts payable review flagging potentially unallowable expenses, expense report procedures requiring business purpose documentation supporting allowability, and management review approving questionable cost treatment. Create dedicated general ledger accounts for each major unallowable cost category enabling systematic exclusion from indirect pools without requiring year-end analysis reconstructing cost classifications.

Conduct quarterly unallowable cost reviews examining expense accounts for items requiring exclusion, documenting allowability determinations, and adjusting indirect rate projections reflecting unallowable cost impacts. This quarterly discipline ensures year-end ICS preparation involves compiling existing unallowable cost documentation rather than performing initial identification under deadline pressure.

Step 3: Prepare Detailed Submission Schedule Package Using DCAA Templates

Download current DCAA ICS submission templates from official sources ensuring you use current formats reflecting latest adequacy requirements. DCAA periodically updates schedule formats and requirements, with outdated templates creating adequacy problems regardless of calculation accuracy. Organize submission following prescribed schedule sequence facilitating DCAA review, with comprehensive table of contents, schedule cross-references, and explanatory notes supporting complex calculations or unusual items.

Complete all required schedules even when certain schedules may not apply to your business, noting “not applicable” with brief explanations rather than omitting schedules entirely. Schedule omissions trigger adequacy questions even when omitted schedules wouldn’t contain material information, with complete packages demonstrating submission thoroughness that partial packages cannot convey.

Step 4: Develop Comprehensive General Ledger to ICS Reconciliations

Create detailed reconciliations connecting each ICS schedule to specific general ledger accounts, trial balance line items, or audited financial statement amounts. Document the reconciliation methodology explaining how general ledger detail maps to ICS schedules, what adjustments bridge differences, and why adjustments are necessary and appropriate. These reconciliations provide the audit trail DCAA needs to verify submission accuracy without extensive additional documentation requests.

Prepare allocation base reconciliations demonstrating how direct cost bases used for indirect rate calculations tie to payroll summaries, labor distribution reports, and general ledger labor accounts. Document any adjustments reducing allocation bases for unallowable direct costs, IR&D, or other required exclusions, with supporting calculations proving adjustment accuracy and completeness.

Step 5: Compile Required Supporting Documentation Exhibits

Assemble comprehensive supporting documentation including: general ledger trial balance for submission period, audited financial statements when available, payroll summaries supporting labor cost assertions, organizational charts showing company structure, contract listings identifying all government contracts, facilities capital cost of money calculations when applicable, and executive compensation documentation supporting allowability. Organize exhibits logically with clear references to submission schedules they support, enabling DCAA reviewers to locate supporting information efficiently.

Develop explanatory memoranda for unusual items, significant cost changes from prior years, accounting policy modifications, or other matters requiring additional context beyond schedule numbers. These explanations demonstrate submission thoroughness while proactively addressing questions DCAA might otherwise raise during adequacy review.

Step 6: Conduct Internal Pre-Submission Adequacy Review

Perform comprehensive internal review using DCAA’s adequacy checklist verifying all required schedules are included, calculations are accurate, reconciliations are complete, and supporting documentation is adequate. Assign reviewers independent of submission preparation providing fresh perspective identifying issues preparers might overlook through familiarity. Document review findings, implement corrections, and maintain review records demonstrating quality control procedures supporting submission accuracy.

Engage external consultants or advisors to conduct mock adequacy reviews examining submissions against DCAA standards, identifying potential deficiencies, and recommending corrections before official submission. External review costs far less than DCAA rejections requiring resubmission, delayed audits, and prolonged billing reserve accumulation.

Step 7: Submit Through Proper Electronic Channels by Deadline

Register for WAWF system access well before submission deadline, ensuring technical capability to navigate electronic submission requirements without last-minute complications. Follow DCAA’s electronic submission procedures exactly including proper file formats (typically PDF), required file naming conventions, and complete submission packages uploaded together rather than piecemeal additions creating version confusion.

Submit at least two weeks before six-month deadline providing buffer for technical problems, system issues, or last-minute discoveries requiring correction. Late submissions violate contract terms while creating negative impressions affecting DCAA’s approach to your audit even after delayed submissions are eventually accepted.

Step 8: Maintain Responsive Communication During DCAA Adequacy Review

Monitor submission status through WAWF tracking and DCAA communication, responding promptly to adequacy questions or documentation requests. DCAA typically conducts initial adequacy review within thirty days after submission, identifying deficiencies requiring correction before audit scheduling. Rapid response to adequacy issues demonstrates contractor cooperation and professionalism while preventing unnecessary delays in audit scheduling.

Provide clear, complete responses to adequacy questions with supporting documentation, explanatory memoranda, and corrected schedules as needed. Incomplete or evasive responses to adequacy questions prolong review periods while creating auditor skepticism about submission reliability and contractor cooperation.

Step 9: Prepare Comprehensive Audit Support Documentation

Organize detailed audit support files anticipating documentation DCAA will request during rate audits including: detailed general ledger transaction listings by account, vendor invoices supporting significant expenses, payroll registers supporting labor costs, timesheets supporting labor distribution, contract files with cost accumulation details, unallowable cost supporting analysis, and indirect rate calculation workpapers. Systematic organization enables efficient audit response while demonstrating accounting system adequacy through readily available supporting records.

Develop audit response procedures assigning responsibilities for documentation gathering, establishing response timelines ensuring prompt delivery, and implementing quality review preventing submission of incomplete or inaccurate information. Efficient audit support reduces audit duration while building positive DCAA relationships supporting future interactions.

Step 10: Document Lessons Learned and Implement Process Improvements

Conduct post-submission reviews evaluating ICS preparation process effectiveness, identifying challenges encountered, documenting solutions implemented, and capturing lessons learned for future submissions. Create written procedures documenting your ICS preparation approach, schedule preparation methodology, reconciliation techniques, and review processes, establishing institutional knowledge supporting consistent submissions despite potential personnel changes.

Implement process improvements addressing difficulties encountered during preparation including accounting system enhancements enabling easier cost segregation, improved unallowable cost identification procedures, enhanced documentation practices, or earlier preparation timelines. Continuous improvement transforms ICS preparation from annual crisis into systematic business process supporting compliance and efficient operations.

The Investment in Compliant ICS Preparation

Implementing systematic ICS preparation procedures costs between $15,000 and $55,000 annually for small to mid-sized contractors depending on submission complexity, accounting system adequacy, and internal capability. This includes preparation time, external review, consultant support, and system improvements. However, these costs represent necessary compliance investments enabling contract performance and cash flow rather than discretionary expenses subject to deferral.

Let me show you the value: contractors with excellent ICS processes submit adequate proposals by deadline enabling timely DCAA audits, minimize questioned costs through thorough unallowable cost identification and comprehensive documentation, and maintain positive cash flow through prompt audit completion and billing reserve release. They avoid the extended audit cycles that result from inadequate submissions, prevention of billing reserve accumulation exceeding $500,000 or more, and reputation damage from perceived non-compliance affecting contract awards and customer relationships.

Contractors with poor ICS processes face submission rejection requiring rework while audit scheduling delays accumulate, experience cash flow constraints from billing reserves growing during extended audit periods, and incur crisis consulting costs implementing rushed corrections exceeding systematic preparation investments. They suffer relationship damage when customers view late or inadequate submissions as operational deficiency indicators affecting contract award decisions and performance evaluations.

Understanding ICS Requirements Across Contract Types and Agencies

FAR 52.216-7 incurred cost submission requirements apply to cost-reimbursement contracts across all federal agencies including Department of Defense, NASA, Department of Energy, and civilian agencies. Your submission obligations remain consistent regardless of customer agency, with DCAA conducting audits for most defense contracts while other audit agencies handle civilian work using similar standards.

Contractors holding multiple contracts with different fiscal year-end dates may face multiple submission deadlines requiring separate ICS packages for different accounting periods. Contractors with forward pricing rate agreements or advance agreements may have modified submission requirements, but fundamental obligation to submit final indirect cost proposals supporting actual rate determination remains consistent across contract types and customer agencies.

Your Path to ICS Success

The incurred cost submission landscape rewards contractors who maintain year-round accounting discipline rather than treating ICS as annual crisis requiring heroic effort. DCAA evaluates submissions against clear adequacy standards consistently applied, with success depending on systematic preparation and comprehensive documentation rather than relationships or negotiation.

For contractors seeking ICS compliance support, Hour Timesheet provides labor tracking foundation supporting accurate indirect rate calculations through daily timesheet discipline, proper charge code application, and comprehensive labor distribution documentation. Our systems integrate with accounting platforms enabling the cost accumulation accuracy that adequate ICS submissions require.

Your cost-reimbursement contracts deserve the accounting infrastructure supporting compliant submissions, timely audits, and healthy cash flow. Build ICS processes ensuring annual compliance becomes systematic business practice rather than annual emergency.

Additional Resources

Related Hour Timesheet Articles:

Official Regulatory References:

 

 

SF 1408 Requirements for Government Contracts

SF 1408 Requirements

Your company just won a competitive $2.8 million cost-reimbursement contract—your first significant government award after years pursuing federal opportunities. Then DCAA notified you of an upcoming pre-award accounting system survey using Standard Form 1408. Three weeks later, DCAA issued a determination that your accounting system contains significant deficiencies preventing reliable cost accumulation and allocation, recommending contract award be withheld pending system corrections. Here’s what contractors miss about pre-award surveys: winning the technical and price competition doesn’t guarantee contract award—you must demonstrate accounting system adequacy meeting specific regulatory standards before the government will execute cost-reimbursement contracts, and discovering system deficiencies after contract award notification leaves you scrambling to implement corrections under intense time pressure while the customer questions your operational readiness. Understanding how to prepare for, navigate, and successfully complete pre-award accounting system surveys isn’t about gaming DCAA—it’s about building fundamental business systems supporting reliable cost management, demonstrating organizational maturity handling government funds responsibly, and proving you possess the infrastructure required for successful contract performance before taking on reimbursement-based work.

The Legal Framework Governing Pre-Award Accounting System Requirements

Federal acquisition regulations establish specific accounting system standards contractors must meet before receiving cost-reimbursement contracts. FAR 16.301-3(a)(1) requires contracting officers to ensure adequate accounting systems exist before awarding cost-reimbursement contracts, with adequacy determined through DCAA pre-award surveys evaluating whether contractors maintain systems capable of segregating direct costs from indirect costs, establishing labor distribution based on actual activities, accumulating costs by contract, and supporting invoicing requirements. This isn’t bureaucratic formality—it’s the government ensuring you can actually track costs before agreeing to reimburse them.

The accounting system criteria under DFARS 252.242-7006 establish eighteen specific requirements contractor accounting systems must satisfy including: logical and consistent cost accumulation, proper segregation of direct and indirect costs, identification of costs by contract line item, exclusion of unallowable costs, accurate interim billing, and reliable cost allocation methodologies. Defense contracts subject DFARS requirements, while civilian agency contracts apply similar standards through FAR provisions, but fundamental accounting system expectations remain consistent—you need systems proving you can track costs accurately and charge customers appropriately.

FAR 42.302(a)(12) assigns DCAA responsibility for evaluating contractor accounting systems, conducting surveys using Standard Form 1408 (Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System) to assess system adequacy. DCAA auditors evaluate whether your accounting system design, policies, procedures, and actual practices satisfy regulatory requirements, examining everything from chart of accounts structure to timekeeping procedures to indirect rate calculations. Understanding DCAA compliance requirements means recognizing that pre-award surveys represent comprehensive accounting system assessments rather than limited financial reviews—auditors evaluate end-to-end processes from time recording through invoicing.

The consequence framework involves contract award delays or denials when DCAA identifies significant deficiencies—problems so serious they prevent reliable cost accumulation and billing. Contracting officers cannot award cost-reimbursement contracts when DCAA determines accounting systems contain significant deficiencies, forcing contractors to implement corrections before contract execution. Minor deficiencies that don’t prevent reliable cost management may permit contract award with corrective action plans, but significant deficiencies stop awards completely until remediation is verified through follow-up surveys.

What Contractors Must Understand About Pre-Award Survey Challenges

Here’s what contractors miss about pre-award surveys: DCAA doesn’t evaluate your accounting system against your industry practices or commercial customer expectations—auditors assess compliance with specific federal cost accounting standards that often exceed commercial requirements in documentation rigor, segregation discipline, and allocation sophistication. Your $2.8 million contract opportunity requires accounting infrastructure that many successful commercial businesses don’t maintain, with survey failure rates exceeding 40% for first-time contractors underestimating federal system requirements.

The timekeeping inadequacy represents the most common survey failure when contractors lack daily time recording, contemporaneous supervisor approval, or adequate project coding structures. DCAA compliance explained emphasizes that weekly or bi-weekly timesheets violate federal requirements mandating daily recording. When your employees complete timesheets every Friday covering the previous week, or submit monthly time summaries, or use generic project codes like “overhead” without contract-specific charging, you’ve failed fundamental timekeeping requirements guaranteed to produce significant deficiency findings. DCAA expects systems where employees record hours daily, charge time to specific contracts using detailed job codes, and receive supervisor review and approval demonstrating management oversight of labor distribution accuracy.

The cost segregation challenge emerges when contractors lack adequate accounting structure distinguishing direct costs chargeable to specific contracts from indirect costs benefiting multiple contracts requiring allocation. This is where audits go sideways—contractors operating with simplified chart of accounts adequate for commercial work discover federal requirements demand separate general ledger accounts for direct labor, indirect labor, fringe benefits, overhead expenses, general and administrative costs, and unallowable costs with clear segregation preventing cost misclassification. When your accounting system lumps various cost types together requiring manual analysis to separate direct from indirect costs, you’ve created the lack of adequate cost segregation that DCAA flags as a significant deficiency.

The indirect rate methodology problem surfaces when contractors either lack formal indirect rate structures or maintain rate calculations that fail basic adequacy tests. Small businesses transitioning from commercial work often have no indirect rate infrastructure, simply marking up direct costs by arbitrary percentages without documented cost pool composition or allocation base logic. Others maintain rate calculations mixing unallowable costs in indirect pools, using inconsistent allocation bases across cost types, or lacking adequate documentation supporting rate computations. Understanding DCAA timekeeping requirements includes recognizing that indirect rates require systematic cost accumulation, rational allocation bases, and comprehensive documentation proving rate calculations produce equitable cost distribution rather than arbitrary markups.

The unallowable cost failure occurs when contractors lack procedures identifying and excluding costs that FAR prohibits charging to government contracts. Without systematic unallowable cost identification, accounting systems accumulate entertainment, lobbying, advertising, and other restricted costs in indirect pools, then allocate portions to government contracts through indirect rates. DCAA views this as fundamental system inadequacy—you must maintain accounting procedures identifying unallowable costs at initial recording, segregating them in separate accounts, and excluding them from indirect rate calculations ensuring government contracts never absorb prohibited expenses through overhead allocation.

The billing support inadequacy manifests when contractors cannot demonstrate how costs accumulate from source documents through general ledger to contract invoices. DCAA auditors trace costs backward from invoices through job costing to original timesheets, purchase orders, and receipts, evaluating whether your system provides clear audit trail supporting billed amounts. When this traceability breaks down—when you can’t easily demonstrate which specific timesheets supported last month’s labor billing or which general ledger transactions compose invoice amounts—you’ve revealed system inadequacy that DCAA flags as preventing reliable billing verification.

The documentation gap becomes apparent when contractors lack written accounting policies, procedures, timekeeping instructions, indirect rate methodologies, or system descriptions. DCAA expects comprehensive documentation explaining how your accounting system operates, what procedures employees follow, how costs flow through accounts, and what controls ensure accuracy. Undocumented systems relying on institutional knowledge or informal practices fail federal requirements demanding systematic, documented processes supporting compliance continuity despite personnel changes.

Five Essential Steps for Pre-Award Survey Success

Step 1: Implement Compliant Daily Timekeeping Before DCAA Survey

Establish daily timesheet systems requiring employees to record hours each day against specific charge codes identifying contracts, indirect activities, and cost types. Configure timekeeping to prevent weekly or bi-weekly summary recording, require daily entries, and generate exception reports identifying late or missing timesheets demanding immediate correction. Deploy Hour Timesheet or similar DCAA-compliant platforms providing required daily functionality, audit trail documentation, and supervisor approval workflows meeting federal standards.

Develop comprehensive charge code structures enabling detailed labor distribution including specific contract identifiers, contract line items when applicable, indirect cost pools (fringe, overhead, G&A), IR&D projects, and unallowable activities. Train employees on proper charge code selection, require project managers to validate time distribution accuracy, and implement controls preventing generic or default coding that fails DCAA adequacy standards. The charge code structure provides foundation for cost accumulation and allocation—inadequate coding granularity guarantees survey failure.

Implement supervisor review and approval procedures requiring timely timesheet approval, documented supervisor sign-off, and management certification that recorded time distribution represents actual work performed. Configure systems preventing payroll processing of unapproved timesheets, escalating approval delays, and maintaining permanent approval documentation supporting audit verification. This approval discipline demonstrates management oversight that DCAA considers essential to reliable labor cost accumulation.

Step 2: Configure Accounting Systems with Adequate Cost Segregation Structure

Redesign chart of accounts providing separate general ledger accounts for major cost categories including direct labor by contract, indirect labor by pool type, fringe benefits, materials and subcontracts by contract, overhead expenses by type, G&A expenses, and unallowable costs. Establish account structure enabling clear cost segregation without requiring manual analysis to separate cost types, ensuring your general ledger directly supports indirect rate calculations and contract cost accumulation.

Implement job costing functionality accumulating direct costs by specific contract, enabling you to answer fundamental questions like “what did Contract ABC cost us last month?” without spreadsheet analysis. Configure systems to automatically post labor costs to contracts based on approved timesheet distribution, charge material and subcontract costs to contracts based on purchase order references, and accumulate other direct costs through proper account coding. This automated job costing provides the contract-specific cost accumulation that DCAA considers non-negotiable for cost-reimbursement contract management.

Establish indirect cost pools with clear definitions including which expenses belong in each pool, how costs flow into pools through account structure, and what allocation bases distribute pool costs to final cost objectives. Document your indirect rate structure explaining pool composition, allocation methodology, and calculation procedures. This rate infrastructure transforms your accounting system from commercial simplicity to federal compliance supporting the systematic cost allocation that government reimbursement requires.

Step 3: Develop Comprehensive Written Accounting Policies and Procedures

Create detailed accounting system description documenting your chart of accounts, cost accumulation methodology, labor distribution procedures, indirect rate calculations, billing processes, and control procedures. This system description provides DCAA auditors comprehensive overview of your accounting infrastructure while demonstrating systematic approach to cost management rather than ad hoc practices.

Develop written timekeeping policies establishing daily recording requirements, charge code selection guidance, approval procedures, correction protocols, and compliance standards. Distribute policies to all employees, conduct training ensuring understanding, and implement acknowledgment procedures documenting that employees received and understood timekeeping requirements. Written policies create the compliance foundation that informal practices cannot provide during DCAA evaluation.

Prepare indirect rate methodology documentation explaining pool definitions, expense classifications, allocation base selections, calculation procedures, and rate application methods. Include supporting rationale explaining why selected methodologies produce equitable cost distribution, reference applicable cost accounting standards, and document management approval of rate calculation approaches. This methodology documentation demonstrates that indirect rates result from deliberate accounting design rather than arbitrary markup percentages.

Step 4: Implement Unallowable Cost Identification and Exclusion Procedures

Establish systematic procedures identifying unallowable costs at initial recording including entertainment expenses, alcoholic beverages, lobbying costs, certain advertising, executive compensation exceeding caps, and other FAR-prohibited costs. Train accounts payable staff to flag potentially unallowable expenses during invoice processing, require management review of flagged items, and code confirmed unallowable costs to dedicated general ledger accounts excluded from indirect pools.

Develop unallowable cost monitoring including monthly reviews identifying expenses potentially violating allowability restrictions, quarterly indirect rate recalculations excluding unallowable amounts, and annual comprehensive reviews supporting year-end rate determinations. Create documentation supporting unallowable cost determinations including FAR citations, management analysis, and exclusion calculations proving government contracts never absorb prohibited costs through rate allocation.

Implement billing controls ensuring direct costs charged to contracts meet allowability standards including purchase authorization procedures requiring contract charging approval before procurement, invoice review validating costs comply with contract scope and FAR requirements, and management certification that billed costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. These billing controls prevent direct charging of unallowable costs that indirect cost procedures wouldn’t catch.

Step 5: Conduct Pre-Survey Readiness Assessment and Remediation

Perform internal accounting system assessment before contract award notification using SF 1408 criteria evaluating timekeeping adequacy, cost segregation, indirect rates, unallowable cost procedures, billing support, and documentation completeness. Identify deficiencies requiring correction, develop remediation plans with specific timelines, and implement fixes before DCAA survey rather than scrambling after survey announcement.

Engage qualified consultants to conduct mock DCAA surveys examining your accounting system against federal standards, identifying compliance gaps, and providing remediation guidance. External assessment provides objective evaluation while enabling correction before actual DCAA review, dramatically improving survey success probability. The mock survey investment costs far less than losing contract awards or implementing emergency fixes under DCAA pressure.

Document all accounting system improvements including implementation dates, responsible personnel, and verification procedures proving corrections were implemented effectively. Maintain implementation records supporting demonstration to DCAA that identified deficiencies were corrected, controls were established preventing recurrence, and your system now meets federal adequacy standards enabling successful survey completion.

The Investment in Pre-Award Survey Preparation

Implementing compliant accounting systems meeting DCAA pre-award survey standards costs between $25,000 and $85,000 for small to mid-sized contractors depending on system complexity, current infrastructure adequacy, and remediation scope. This includes timekeeping system implementation, chart of accounts redesign, policy documentation, indirect rate development, and consultant support. Annual maintenance costs typically run $8,000 to $20,000 for ongoing compliance monitoring, system updates, and documentation maintenance.

Let me show you the value: contractors with compliant accounting systems pass pre-award surveys enabling contract awards, avoid the contract delays that damage customer relationships and business reputation, and build infrastructure supporting efficient operations and financial management beyond bare compliance. They compete effectively for cost-reimbursement opportunities that many competitors cannot pursue due to accounting system inadequacy, creating competitive advantages in lucrative contract segments.

Contractors with inadequate accounting systems face contract award denials losing business opportunities after investing heavily in capture and proposal efforts, experience prolonged contract execution delays while implementing emergency system corrections, and suffer reputation damage when customers question operational readiness based on accounting system failures. They incur crisis consulting costs implementing rushed fixes exceeding the investment proper preparation would require, while still risking inadequate remediation prolonging survey resolution.

Understanding Pre-Award Survey Scope Across Contract Types and Agencies

Pre-award accounting system surveys apply primarily to cost-reimbursement contracts where the government reimburses actual costs requiring reliable cost tracking, though certain cost-type fixed-price contracts like time-and-materials may trigger surveys when cost visibility and audit trail become contractually important. Fixed-price contracts generally don’t require pre-award surveys since the government pays agreed prices regardless of your actual costs, though exceptional circumstances involving cost-based pricing or high contract values might trigger reviews.

Department of Defense contracts operate under DFARS accounting system requirements establishing specific criteria and compliance standards, while civilian agency contracts follow FAR provisions with generally similar expectations but potentially different emphasis areas. Your accounting system must satisfy applicable standards for your target customer agencies, with DoD requirements typically representing the most stringent baseline that satisfies most civilian agency needs.

Your Path to Pre-Award Survey Success

The pre-award survey landscape rewards contractors who invest in compliant accounting infrastructure before pursuing cost-reimbursement contracts rather than winning awards then discovering system inadequacy. DCAA evaluates accounting systems against clear regulatory standards consistently applied across contractors, with survey success depending on systematic compliance rather than auditor relationships or negotiation.

For contractors seeking pre-award survey preparation, Hour Timesheet provides purpose-built daily timekeeping platforms meeting DCAA requirements out-of-the-box, enabling rapid compliant implementation without custom development. Our systems provide the timekeeping foundation supporting survey success while integrating with accounting platforms enabling comprehensive cost management.

Your contract opportunities deserve accounting infrastructure enabling award rather than creating barriers. Build compliant systems before you need them, ensuring readiness when opportunities emerge.

Additional Resources

Related Hour Timesheet Articles:

Official Regulatory References:

ADDITIONAL LINKS Product View Case Studies Partners Knowledge Base Blog News FAQ

CONTACT US

(888) 780-9961
support@hourtimesheet.com

Contact Sales

Hour Timesheet is owned and operated by Mission Critical SaaS LLC Terms Privacy Cookies Copyright ©