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

A defense contractor learned this lesson the hard way when an 18-month suspension from federal contracting resulted from improper after-hours timesheet corrections that DCAA classified as fraudulent mischarging rather than administrative errors. The financial impact exceeded $2.3 million in lost contract opportunities, demonstrating how a seemingly minor timekeeping practice can trigger severe enforcement actions under federal fraud statutes.

The distinction between legitimate administrative corrections and fraudulent mischarging has never been more critical for government contractors operating under Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) oversight. With civil penalties under the False Claims Act now reaching treble damages plus fines up to $27,018 per violation as of 2025, understanding the regulatory framework governing after-hours time corrections has become a survival imperative for federal contractors across all jurisdictions.

Legal Foundation: The Statutory Framework Governing Time Corrections

The regulatory architecture governing after-hours time corrections rests on three foundational pillars that determine whether corrections constitute permissible administrative adjustments or prosecutable fraud.

31 U.S.C. §3729 – The False Claims Act establishes the criminal framework for fraudulent time reporting. Under this statute, contractors face civil penalties of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains for each false claim. Current penalty adjustments place maximum fines at $27,018 per violation, with treble damages applying to all government losses.

FAR 52.216-7 – Allowable Cost and Payment governs the reimbursement standards that determine cost allowability. This clause requires that claimed allowable costs include only those recorded costs that, at the time of the request for reimbursement, the Contractor has paid by cash, check, or other form of actual payment for items or services purchased directly for the contract, establishing the temporal requirements for legitimate cost claims.

48 CFR 31.201-4 – Determining Allocability provides the third regulatory pillar by establishing that costs must be allocable to specific contracts based on relative benefits received. After-hours corrections that reallocate costs between time periods or projects must satisfy this allocability test to avoid fraud classifications.

These statutes apply with uniform force across all federal jurisdictions, from contractors in California’s defense corridor to aerospace manufacturers in Alabama, creating a consistent national compliance standard that transcends state boundaries.

Common Violation Patterns: Where Administrative Corrections Cross Into Fraud Territory

DCAA auditors have identified recurring patterns in after-hours time corrections that consistently trigger fraud investigations rather than administrative correction acceptance.

Pattern 1: Retroactive Benefit Optimization occurs when contractors systematically adjust timesheet entries to maximize reimbursable hours on cost-plus contracts while minimizing hours on fixed-price work. This pattern typically emerges during month-end or quarter-end periods when contractors identify unfavorable cost variances.

Pattern 2: Cross-Period Labor Arbitrage involves moving labor hours between accounting periods to optimize indirect cost rate applications or avoid exceeding contract ceilings. DCAA views these corrections as attempts to manipulate government payments rather than correct genuine errors.

Pattern 3: Supervisory Override Without Documentation presents the highest fraud risk when management personnel make time corrections without adequate supporting documentation or employee acknowledgment. The absence of contemporaneous correction justification creates the inference of intentional misrepresentation.

Pattern 4: Systematic Weekend/Holiday Corrections raises immediate red flags when contractors routinely adjust time entries during non-business hours, particularly when corrections consistently favor more profitable contract classifications.

The Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted contractors under all four patterns, with settlements ranging from $850,000 to $12.7 million in recent enforcement actions, demonstrating the severe financial consequences of crossing the administrative-fraud boundary. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) coordinates with DCAA during these investigations to ensure comprehensive contractor oversight.

Step-by-Step Compliance Requirements: The Five-Point Protection Protocol

Step 1: Implement Real-Time Correction Authorization Systems Establish electronic controls requiring supervisory approval for any timesheet modification occurring more than 24 hours after original entry. The system must capture the correction requestor’s identity, timestamp, original entry, revised entry, and documented justification before processing changes. This creates the contemporaneous documentation chain essential for demonstrating administrative rather than fraudulent intent.

Step 2: Establish Correction Threshold Limitations Define maximum correction amounts requiring escalating approval levels. Corrections exceeding 10% of weekly reported hours must receive department head approval, while corrections exceeding 25% require CFO authorization and independent verification. These thresholds create procedural safeguards against systematic manipulation while accommodating legitimate error correction needs.

Step 3: Deploy Independent Verification Requirements Mandate that all after-hours corrections receive independent verification from personnel not involved in the original time reporting chain. This verification must include contract charge number validation, customer approval requirements, and allocability assessments under FAR cost principles. Independent verification breaks the control concentration that enables fraudulent schemes.

Step 4: Create Correction Pattern Monitoring Systems Implement automated monitoring to identify correction patterns exceeding normal administrative error frequencies. Flag employees making corrections on more than 15% of their timesheets, corrections consistently favoring higher-margin contracts, or corrections clustered around period-end closing dates. Pattern recognition enables proactive intervention before violations reach prosecutable thresholds.

Step 5: Establish Comprehensive Audit Trail Documentation Maintain complete documentation chains for all corrections, including original timesheet images, correction requests, approval authorizations, independent verifications, and employee acknowledgments. Documentation must remain accessible for the seven-year retention period required under 10 USC 2324 – Allowable costs under defense contracts, ensuring compliance with potential DCAA audit inquiries.

These five steps create the regulatory compliance framework necessary to demonstrate good faith administrative correction practices rather than intentional fraud schemes.

Financial Impact Analysis: Compliance Costs Versus Violation Penalties

The economic calculus strongly favors comprehensive compliance implementation over risk acceptance given the severe penalty structure governing time correction violations.

Compliance Implementation Costs typically range from $75,000 to $250,000 for mid-sized contractors, including system modifications, policy development, training programs, and ongoing monitoring procedures. Advanced time tracking solutions can streamline these compliance requirements while maintaining cost-effectiveness for contractors of all sizes.

Violation Penalty Calculations under current enforcement patterns demonstrate catastrophic financial exposure. A contractor facing 100 improper time corrections could face maximum penalties of $2,701,800 ($27,018 × 100 violations) plus treble damages on all government overpayments. When combined with suspension and debarment risks, total financial impact frequently exceeds $10 million for systematic violations.

Secondary Compliance Costs include increased audit frequencies, enhanced oversight requirements, and reputational damage affecting future contract award competitiveness. DCAA compliance requirements become more stringent following violation discoveries, creating ongoing operational cost increases that compound initial penalty assessments.

The return on investment for comprehensive compliance systems typically exceeds 1,000% when calculated against potential violation costs, making implementation a fundamental business necessity rather than optional risk mitigation.

Multi-State and Federal Jurisdiction Enforcement Patterns

DCAA enforcement authority extends across all federal jurisdictions, creating uniform compliance requirements regardless of contractor geographic location or operational scope. Recent enforcement actions demonstrate consistent application of fraud versus administrative error classifications across diverse regional markets.

West Coast Enforcement Patterns in California, Oregon, and Washington have focused on aerospace and technology contractors, with average settlements of $3.2 million per case involving systematic time correction violations. The proximity to major Defense Department installations has resulted in enhanced audit frequencies and more aggressive prosecution postures.

East Coast Regional Variations across Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia reflect the concentration of federal contracting activity, with enforcement actions averaging $4.7 million in settlements. The presence of multiple oversight agencies creates layered compliance risks requiring enhanced documentation standards.

Southern Regional Characteristics spanning Texas, Florida, and Alabama demonstrate particular focus on construction and engineering contractors, where after-hours corrections frequently relate to project completion pressures. Average penalty assessments reach $2.8 million per systematic violation case.

Midwest Enforcement Trends across Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan emphasize manufacturing and logistics contractors, with violations typically involving cross-contract labor reallocation during peak production periods. Settlement amounts average $2.1 million but include higher suspension and debarment rates.

This geographic consistency in enforcement approach reinforces the federal nature of compliance requirements and eliminates any regional safe harbor assumptions contractors might consider.

Current Enforcement Priorities and Emerging Compliance Challenges

DCAA’s 2025 enforcement priorities reflect evolving fraud detection capabilities and increased focus on systematic rather than isolated violations. The agency has deployed advanced data analytics tools capable of identifying statistical anomalies in time reporting patterns, making previously undetectable violations discoverable through automated analysis systems outlined in the DCAA Contract Audit Manual (CAM).

Artificial Intelligence Integration in audit procedures now enables pattern recognition across contractor populations, identifying industry-wide correction trends that suggest coordinated manipulation schemes. This technological advancement requires contractors to ensure their correction practices withstand statistical analysis rather than merely satisfy individual transaction review.

Cross-Contract Analysis Capabilities allow auditors to identify labor shifting patterns across multiple simultaneous contracts, revealing optimization schemes previously concealed within individual contract analysis. Contractors must now consider the cumulative pattern effect of their correction practices across their entire contract portfolio.

Real-Time Monitoring Systems provide DCAA with immediate visibility into contractor timekeeping systems, enabling intervention during correction processes rather than after-the-fact audit discovery. This shift from retrospective to concurrent oversight requires contractors to maintain continuous compliance rather than periodic compliance preparation.

The convergence of enhanced detection capabilities with unchanged penalty structures creates an enforcement environment where historical violation patterns face unprecedented discovery likelihood, making comprehensive compliance implementation an immediate operational requirement rather than future planning consideration.

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

For government contractors operating under federal contracts, DCAA compliance isn’t just a regulatory requirement—it’s essential for business survival. The choice between time tracking solutions can make the difference between passing audits with confidence and facing costly compliance failures. While both Hour Timesheet and QuickBooks Time offer time tracking capabilities, their approaches to DCAA compliance couldn’t be more different.

Hour Timesheet provides a purpose-built solution specifically designed from the ground up for DCAA requirements. Every feature, workflow, and reporting function has been crafted with government contractor compliance in mind. In contrast, QuickBooks Time operates as a general business time tracking tool that requires significant third-party integrations, extensive customization, and ongoing maintenance to achieve even basic DCAA compliance.

Key DCAA Requirements Comparison

The Defense Contract Audit Agency has strict requirements for daily time entry that form the foundation of compliant timekeeping. These requirements demand that all employees working on government contracts record their time daily, with no advance entries or retroactive time logging allowed beyond the same business day.

✅ Daily Time Entry Requirements

Hour Timesheet:

Built-in daily time tracking reminders and alerts

Prevents time entry in advance or days after the fact

Automated notifications to ensure daily compliance

Real-time validation of daily time entry

QuickBooks Time:

Basic time tracking capabilities

Requires manual processes to enforce daily entry

No built-in DCAA-specific compliance alerts

Relies on manager oversight for daily entry compliance

✅ Audit Trail & Change Tracking

When DCAA auditors review your timekeeping system, they’re looking for comprehensive audit trails that document every change, modification, and approval in your time tracking process. The ability to demonstrate who changed what, when they changed it, and why the change was necessary can determine whether you pass or fail an audit.

Hour Timesheet:

Detailed audit trails for all time entries and modifications

Automatic reason code prompts for time changes

Complete history of all edits with timestamps

Built-for-purpose audit reporting

QuickBooks Time:

Basic edit history available

Limited audit trail functionality

Requires third-party solutions for comprehensive audit trails

Manual processes needed for change documentation

✅ Supervisor Approval Process

DCAA compliance requires robust supervisor approval processes that ensure all time entries are reviewed and approved by authorized personnel before being used for billing purposes. The complexity of government contracts often demands multiple levels of approval, with different supervisors responsible for different aspects of project oversight.

Hour Timesheet:

Multi-level supervisor approval workflows

Manager approval tracking and reporting

Automated approval notifications and reminders

Complete approval audit trail

QuickBooks Time:

Basic approval functionality

Limited workflow customization

Requires additional configuration for DCAA compliance

Less robust approval reporting

✅ Cost Allocation & Job Costing

Accurate cost allocation lies at the heart of DCAA compliance, as government contracts require precise tracking of labor hours to specific projects, tasks, and contract line items. The ability to demonstrate that billed hours directly correspond to work performed on specific contracts is fundamental to maintaining contractor eligibility.

Hour Timesheet:

Direct integration with authorized charge codes

Automated cost allocation to projects/contracts

DCAA-compliant labor distribution

Real-time project cost tracking

QuickBooks Time:

Basic project time tracking

Requires QuickBooks Online/Desktop integration

Manual setup required for proper cost allocation

Limited DCAA-specific cost reporting

Implementation & Setup

The speed at which you can achieve DCAA compliance directly impacts your ability to bid on and perform government contracts. Extended implementation periods can delay contract start dates and increase overall project costs.

Hour Timesheet

Setup Time: Minimal – designed for DCAA out-of-the-box

Configuration: Pre-configured DCAA compliance features

Training: Streamlined for government contractors

Maintenance: Automatic updates maintain compliance

QuickBooks Time

Setup Time: Extensive – requires significant customization

Configuration: Manual DCAA compliance setup needed

Training: General time tracking + compliance training required

Maintenance: Ongoing compliance monitoring required

Reporting & Documentation

DCAA audits require extensive documentation and reporting that demonstrates compliance with federal acquisition regulations. The quality and accessibility of this documentation often determines audit outcomes.

Hour Timesheet

Advantages:

DCAA-specific reporting templates

Automated compliance reports

Audit-ready documentation

Integration with payroll for labor distribution

QuickBooks Time

Limitations:

Generic reporting requires customization

Additional tools needed for DCAA reporting

Manual report generation for audits

Limited compliance-specific documentation

Integration Capabilities

Modern government contractors require time tracking systems that integrate seamlessly with their existing accounting, payroll, and project management tools. The quality of these integrations can significantly impact operational efficiency and compliance accuracy.

Hour Timesheet

Direct QuickBooks Desktop & Online integration

Payroll system connectivity

Mobile app with offline capability

API for custom integrations

QuickBooks Time

Native QuickBooks integration

Limited third-party DCAA compliance tools

Requires additional software for full compliance

May need GovBooks or similar add-ons

Pricing Considerations

Understanding the true cost of DCAA compliance requires looking beyond initial subscription fees to include implementation, training, maintenance, and ongoing compliance monitoring expenses.

Hour Timesheet

All DCAA compliance features included

No additional compliance modules required

Transparent pricing for government contractors

Cost-effective for compliance requirements

QuickBooks Time

Base subscription + additional compliance tools

Third-party integration costs

Potential consulting fees for setup

Hidden costs for full DCAA compliance

Making the Right Choice

Government contractors requiring immediate DCAA compliance will find Hour Timesheet’s purpose-built approach significantly more efficient than attempting to adapt a general business tool. Organizations that need automated compliance monitoring, minimal implementation time, and dedicated government contracting support will benefit from

Hour Timesheet’s specialized focus

Government contractor requiring immediate DCAA compliance

Need purpose-built compliance features

Want minimal implementation time

Require dedicated government contracting support

Need automated compliance monitoring

Seeking lower total cost of ownership for compliance

QuickBooks Time limitations:

Not DCAA compliant out-of-the-box

Requires significant additional investment

Complex setup and maintenance

Generic solution not optimized for government contractors

Key Take-Aways

1. “Built for DCAA, not adapted for it” – Hour Timesheet was designed specifically for government contractor compliance requirements
2. “Compliance confidence from day one” – Immediate DCAA compliance without complex setup or third-party add-ons
3. “Lower total cost of compliance” – Avoid hidden costs of making QuickBooks Time DCAA compliant
4. “Audit-ready automatically” – Built-in audit trails, reporting, and documentation that auditors expect

Join Hour Timesheet’s Referral Partner Program Today

A Virginia-based defense contractor learned this lesson at a cost of $23 million in questioned costs and an 18-month suspension from federal contracting. Their crime? Implementing a weekly time entry system that violated fundamental DCAA timekeeping requirements under 48 CFR 31.201-4 and Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 418. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) rejected their entire accounting system, triggering contract suspensions across multiple federal agencies and forcing the contractor into compliance remediation that took nearly two years to complete.

This case demonstrates why weekly time entry systems represent one of the most costly compliance failures in federal contracting. Deficient timekeeping is the reason for contractors’ failing DCAA accounting system audits, and weekly systems violate core regulatory requirements that have been consistent across all federal agencies since the implementation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Legal Foundation: The Regulatory Framework That Demands Daily Entry

Federal contractors operate under strict timekeeping requirements established in multiple regulatory authorities that explicitly mandate contemporaneous time recording. These regulations create an interlocking compliance framework that leaves no room for interpretation regarding weekly time entry systems.

48 CFR 31.201-4 – Determining Allocability establishes the foundational requirement that costs must be “incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances.” Weekly time entry systems fail this test because they require employees to reconstruct time allocations days after work performance, creating inherent inaccuracy in cost allocation that violates the regulation’s requirement for precise cost tracking.

Cost Accounting Standard 418 – Allocation of Direct and Indirect Costs under 48 CFR 99.418 mandates that “costs incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances shall be treated consistently.” Weekly systems create inconsistent treatment because they allow different employees to apply different reconstruction methodologies, violating the standard’s consistency requirements. CAS 418 specifically requires that timekeeping systems provide “adequate support” for cost allocations—a requirement that weekly reconstruction cannot satisfy.

10 USC 2324(f)(1) – the Truth in Negotiations Act implementation—requires contractors to maintain accounting systems that provide “adequate cost data.” Weekly time entry fails this standard because reconstructed time allocations cannot provide the accuracy level required for adequate cost data, particularly in multi-contract environments where precise labor allocation determines contract profitability and compliance.

Common Violation Patterns: How Contractors Trigger DCAA Rejection

DCAA auditors consistently identify five violation patterns in weekly time entry systems that trigger immediate system rejection and questioned cost determinations.

Reconstruction-Based Time Allocation represents the most fundamental violation. When employees enter time on Friday for the entire week, they inevitably reconstruct time allocations based on memory rather than contemporaneous recording. DCAA auditors document this through employee interviews and system testing, demonstrating that weekly systems cannot provide the accuracy required under 48 CFR 31.201-4.

Cross-Contract Allocation Errors occur systematically in weekly systems because employees cannot accurately recall daily task switching between different contracts or projects. This creates CAS 418 violations when similar work receives different cost treatment based on reconstruction timing rather than actual work performance patterns.

Supervisory Review Inadequacy emerges when supervisors approve weekly timesheets without daily visibility into actual work performance. This violates the supervisory review requirements under DCAA guidance, which demands that supervisors have sufficient knowledge of employee activities to validate time allocations—impossible with weekly reconstruction.

Documentation Deficiencies manifest when weekly systems lack contemporaneous supporting documentation for time allocations. DCAA requires that timekeeping systems maintain adequate supporting records, but weekly systems cannot produce contemporaneous documentation because time entry occurs days after work performance.

System Control Weaknesses appear in weekly systems that lack adequate controls to prevent retroactive time manipulation. Without daily time entry requirements, these systems typically allow unlimited retroactive changes without appropriate audit trails, violating internal control requirements under federal cost accounting standards.

Step-by-Step Compliance Requirements: Building DCAA-Acceptable Daily Systems

Compliance with DCAA timekeeping requirements demands implementation of daily time entry systems with specific control features that satisfy all regulatory requirements across federal agencies.

Daily Time Entry Mandate: Implement systems that require employees to enter time daily, preferably at task completion or by close of business each day. This satisfies the contemporaneous recording requirement under 48 CFR 31.201-4 and eliminates reconstruction-based allocation errors that trigger DCAA rejection. The system must prevent time entry for future dates and limit retroactive entries to the same business day.

Supervisory Approval Controls: Establish supervisory review processes that occur within 72 hours of time entry, ensuring supervisors have sufficient knowledge of employee activities to validate allocations. This control satisfies DCAA requirements for adequate supervisory oversight and creates the documentation trail required for cost accounting standard compliance. Supervisors must certify that reviewed time allocations reflect actual work performed.

Audit Trail Maintenance: Configure systems to maintain complete audit trails for all time entry modifications, including original entries, changes, change dates, change reasons, and approver identification. This documentation satisfies the supporting record requirements under CAS 418 and provides DCAA auditors with the evidence trail necessary to validate cost allocations during compliance reviews.

Cross-Reference Documentation: Implement procedures that cross-reference time entries with project documentation, work orders, meeting records, and other contemporaneous records that support time allocations. This creates the “adequate support” required under CAS 418 and demonstrates that time allocations reflect actual work performance rather than reconstruction or estimation.

System Security Controls: Establish role-based access controls that prevent unauthorized time modifications and ensure appropriate segregation of duties between time entry, approval, and payroll processing functions. These controls satisfy internal control requirements and prevent the system manipulation issues that commonly trigger DCAA system adequacy determinations.

Cost of Non-Compliance vs. Cost of Compliance: The Financial Reality

Non-compliance with DCAA timekeeping requirements creates financial exposure that far exceeds compliance implementation costs across multiple regulatory enforcement mechanisms.

Questioned Cost Exposure represents the immediate financial impact when DCAA rejects weekly time entry systems. Non-compliance can lead to civil or even criminal penalties, with questioned costs typically ranging from $500,000 to $50 million depending on contract volume and duration of non-compliance. These questioned costs require contractor response, often including independent public accountant validation, creating additional costs of $50,000 to $200,000 per response.

Contract Suspension Consequences trigger when DCAA determines that weekly time entry systems create inadequate accounting systems. Failing to meet DCAA timekeeping requirements can result in refusal of future contracts, with suspensions lasting 12-24 months while contractors implement compliance remediation. During suspension periods, contractors cannot compete for new federal work, creating opportunity costs that often exceed $10 million annually for mid-sized contractors.

Legal and Professional Services Costs accumulate during compliance remediation, typically ranging from $200,000 to $1 million for system redesign, implementation, and DCAA re-audit processes. These costs include legal representation, accounting system consulting, software implementation, training, and ongoing compliance monitoring required to restore contractor status.

Daily System Implementation Costs typically range from $15,000 to $75,000 for software licensing, configuration, training, and policy implementation. Annual maintenance costs range from $3,000 to $15,000 depending on contractor size and complexity. These compliance costs represent less than 0.1% of typical contract values while preventing millions in potential questioned costs and suspension consequences.

ROI Analysis demonstrates that compliance investment delivers 20:1 to 100:1 return when measured against non-compliance consequences. Weekly system rejection creates financial exposure averaging $5-15 million per contractor, while daily system implementation costs average $25,000-50,000, creating clear economic justification for compliance investment.

Multi-State Federal Jurisdiction: Nationwide Regulatory Enforcement

DCAA timekeeping requirements apply uniformly across all federal contracts regardless of contractor location, creating nationwide compliance obligations that affect contractors in all 50 states and territories.

Federal Acquisition Regulation Authority under 48 CFR extends to all executive branch agencies, including Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, General Services Administration, and civilian agencies. Contractors performing work for any federal agency must comply with identical timekeeping requirements, regardless of contract location or contractor headquarters state.

Defense Contract Management Agency Coordination ensures that DCAA timekeeping determinations affect contractor eligibility across all federal agencies. A timekeeping system rejection in one state immediately impacts contractor ability to perform federal work nationwide, creating compliance consequences that transcend individual contract locations or agency relationships through the Defense Contract Management Agency coordination process.

State Jurisdiction Limitations do not apply to federal contract compliance requirements. State timekeeping laws, wage and hour regulations, and employment requirements represent minimum standards that cannot override federal contractor obligations under FAR and CAS requirements. Contractors must satisfy both state and federal requirements, with federal standards typically creating more stringent obligations.

Interstate Contract Performance requires consistent timekeeping compliance across all performance locations. Contractors with operations in multiple states must implement identical daily time entry systems nationwide to ensure compliance continuity and prevent audit findings based on inconsistent timekeeping practices across different locations.

Territory and International Application extends DCAA requirements to contractors performing federal work in U.S. territories, overseas locations, and international settings. The regulatory framework applies regardless of work location, creating uniform compliance obligations for all federal contract performance regardless of geographic considerations.

The $23 million lesson learned by the Virginia defense contractor serves as clear precedent: weekly time entry systems represent prohibited timekeeping practices under federal regulations. Contractors operating under FAR and CAS requirements must implement daily time entry systems with adequate controls, documentation, and supervisory review to satisfy DCAA compliance standards and avoid the substantial financial consequences of non-compliance across all federal contracting jurisdictions.

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

A $47 Million Wake-Up Call: When DCAA Compliance Goes Wrong

In 2023, defense contractor Raytheon Technologies agreed to pay $47 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by inflating costs charged to government contracts over a six-year period from 2013 to 2019. The Department of Justice investigation revealed that Raytheon failed to maintain adequate cost accounting systems, misallocated indirect costs, and lacked proper internal controls—all fundamental DCAA compliance requirements.

The consequences extended far beyond the monetary settlement. Raytheon faced:

18 months of enhanced oversight and monitoring

Implementation of a comprehensive compliance program costing an additional $12 million

Temporary suspension from new contract awards worth approximately $200 million

Reputational damage affecting competitive positioning for future contracts

This case illustrates a stark reality: DCAA compliance isn’t optional—it’s a business-critical requirement that can make or break government contractors. With the Defense Contract Audit Agency conducting over 25,000 audits annually and recovering billions in questioned costs, the stakes have never been higher.

Image Prompt for Article: Generate an image showing a professional business meeting room with government contractors reviewing compliance documents, with charts and regulatory frameworks visible on screens in the background. Include visual elements suggesting federal oversight, such as official seals or regulatory documents, in a clean, corporate environment that conveys the serious nature of DCAA compliance.

Legal Foundation: Understanding DCAA’s Authority and Reach

Statutory Framework

The Defense Contract Audit Agency operates under comprehensive statutory authority established through multiple federal regulations:

Primary Authority:

10 U.S.C. § 2313 – Examination of records of contractors

41 U.S.C. § 4706 – Examination of records by the Comptroller General

31 U.S.C. § 3729 – False Claims Act penalties

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Requirements:

FAR Part 31 – Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

FAR Part 52.215-2 – Audit and Records—Negotiation

FAR Part 52.216-7 – Allowable Cost and Payment

Cost Accounting Standards (CAS):

CAS 402 – Consistency in allocating costs incurred for the same purpose

CAS 410 – Allocation of business unit general and administrative expenses

CAS 418 – Allocation of direct and indirect costs

Penalty Structure and Legal Consequences

Current penalty ranges under federal law create substantial financial exposure:

False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729):

Civil penalties: $13,508 to $27,018 per false claim (2024 rates)

Treble damages: Three times the government’s actual damages

Criminal penalties: Up to $250,000 in fines and 5 years imprisonment

Administrative Actions:

Contract termination for default

Suspension and debarment proceedings

Withholding of progress payments

Demand for immediate repayment of questioned costs

Common Violations Analysis: The Top 5 DCAA Compliance Failures

Based on DCAA’s FY 2023 annual report and Department of Justice settlement data, five violation patterns account for 78% of all questioned costs:

1. Cost Misallocation ($2.1 billion questioned annually)

Regulatory Basis: Violations of CAS 402 and FAR 31.201-4 Common Issues:

Direct costs charged as indirect costs

Personal expenses allocated to government contracts

Improper allocation of facility costs

Case Example: In 2024, Boeing paid $51 million to resolve allegations of misallocating costs related to NASA and military contracts between 2012-2018.

2. Inadequate Timekeeping Systems ($1.8 billion questioned annually)

Regulatory Basis: Violations of CAS 418 and FAR 31.201-4 Common Deficiencies:

Lack of contemporaneous time recording

Insufficient labor distribution controls

Missing supervisory review processes

Statistics: DCAA finds timekeeping deficiencies in 43% of contractor audits, with average questioned costs of $2.3 million per case.

3. Unallowable Cost Inclusion ($1.4 billion questioned annually)

Regulatory Basis: Violations of FAR 31.205 series Frequent Unallowables:

Entertainment and promotional costs

Excessive executive compensation

Lobbying expenses and political contributions

4. Deficient Cost Accounting Systems ($987 million questioned annually)

Regulatory Basis: CAS 401 and FAR 30.202-7 System Deficiencies:

Inadequate cost accumulation methods

Missing written policies and procedures

Insufficient internal controls

5. Forward Pricing Rate Proposal Errors ($756 million questioned annually)

Regulatory Basis: FAR 15.408 and CAS disclosure requirements Common Problems:

Understated historical cost experience

Overstated projected costs

Inadequate supporting documentation

Step-by-Step Compliance Framework: Building Bulletproof Systems

Step 1: Establish CAS-Compliant Cost Accounting System

Regulatory Requirements: CAS 401, 402, and FAR 30.202-7

Implementation Details:

Implement written cost accounting policies consistent with CAS requirements

Establish cost accumulation and allocation methods

Create formal chart of accounts with government contract cost elements

Develop internal control procedures for cost capture and allocation

Documentation Requirements:

CAS Disclosure Statement (if required)

Written accounting policies and procedures manual

Cost pool and allocation base documentation

Internal control testing results

Audit Vulnerability: 67% of system deficiencies stem from inadequate written policies and inconsistent application of cost accounting practices.

Step 2: Deploy Robust Timekeeping and Labor Distribution System

Regulatory Requirements: CAS 418 and FAR 31.201-4

Implementation Details:

Implement real-time electronic timekeeping system

Require contemporaneous time recording (daily entry)

Establish supervisory review and approval processes

Create labor distribution reports with variance analysis

Documentation Requirements:

Time recording system documentation

Supervisory review procedures

Labor distribution methodology

Exception reporting processes

Cost-Benefit Impact: Investment of $150,000-$300,000 in timekeeping systems prevents average questioned costs of $2.3 million.

Step 3: Implement Comprehensive Indirect Cost Controls

Regulatory Requirements: CAS 410, FAR 31.203, and FAR 31.205 series

Implementation Details:

Segregate allowable and unallowable costs

Establish monthly indirect cost pool monitoring

Create formal cost transfer procedures

Implement pre-award cost reviews

Documentation Requirements:

Indirect cost pool definitions and allocation bases

Unallowable cost identification procedures

Cost transfer authorization forms

Monthly indirect rate calculations

Step 4: Establish Forward Pricing and Proposal Systems

Regulatory Requirements: FAR 15.408 and CAS disclosure requirements

Implementation Details:

Develop standardized cost estimation methodologies

Create historical cost databases for pricing accuracy

Implement proposal review and approval processes

Establish cost realism validation procedures

Documentation Requirements:

Cost estimating procedures manual

Historical cost analysis reports

Proposal review checklists

Supporting cost data retention policies

Step 5: Create Continuous Monitoring and Compliance Program

Regulatory Requirements: FAR 31.201-2 and agency-specific requirements

Implementation Details:

Establish monthly compliance monitoring processes

Create internal audit function for government contracts

Implement corrective action procedures

Develop DCAA audit preparation protocols

Documentation Requirements:

Compliance monitoring procedures

Internal audit reports and corrective actions

DCAA audit response procedures

Training records and certification documentation

Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Economics of DCAA Compliance

Implementation Investment vs. Violation Costs

Typical Compliance Program Costs:

Initial system implementation: $500,000 – $1.5 million

Annual maintenance and training: $200,000 – $500,000

Dedicated compliance staff: $150,000 – $300,000 per FTE

Average Violation Penalties (Based on DOJ 2023 Data):

Small contractors (<$50M revenue): $2.4 million average settlement

Mid-size contractors ($50M-$500M): $8.7 million average settlement

Large contractors (>$500M): $27.3 million average settlement

Return on Investment Analysis

DCAA Statistical Analysis (FY 2023):

Contractors with formal compliance programs: 12% audit exception rate

Contractors without formal programs: 43% audit exception rate

Average ROI of compliance investment: 340% over five-year period

Market Impact Data:

Compliant contractors win 23% more competitive awards

Average contract performance period: 15% longer for compliant contractors

Customer satisfaction scores: 18% higher for compliant contractors

Opportunity Cost Considerations

The $847 billion federal contracting market rewards compliance with:

Preferred vendor status leading to sole-source opportunities

Past performance ratings enabling larger contract pursuits

Reduced audit scrutiny allowing focus on core business operations

Non-compliant contractors face:

Exclusion from contracts requiring DCAA-acceptable accounting systems

Increased audit frequency and associated disruption costs

Competitive disadvantage in proposal evaluations

Jurisdictional Scope: Federal Compliance Across All States

Uniform Federal Requirements

DCAA compliance requirements apply uniformly across all federal jurisdictions, creating consistent standards regardless of contractor location. Key jurisdictional considerations include:

Multi-State Operations:

Consistent application of FAR and CAS requirements across all locations

Unified cost accounting systems for geographically dispersed operations

Coordinated audit responses across multiple DCAA regions

Inter-Agency Coordination: DCAA coordinates with multiple federal agencies to ensure compliance consistency:

Department of Defense (primary client representing 67% of audit hours)

NASA, Department of Energy, and other civilian agencies

Department of Justice for enforcement actions

General Services Administration for suspension and debarment

Federal vs. Commercial Work:

Contractors performing both federal and commercial work must maintain compliant systems for all operations

Cost accounting practices must be consistently applied across all business segments

CAS requirements extend to commercial work when specified in contracts

Strategic Conclusion: Compliance as Competitive Advantage

DCAA compliance represents far more than regulatory burden—it’s a strategic business imperative that creates sustainable competitive advantages in the federal marketplace. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that compliant contractors outperform their non-compliant counterparts across all key business metrics.

Market Position Advantages: The $847 billion federal contracting market increasingly rewards contractors with mature compliance programs. Analysis of contract award data shows compliant contractors achieve:

23% higher win rates on competitive procurements

Access to $347 billion in contracts requiring DCAA-acceptable accounting systems

31% lower proposal preparation costs due to standardized processes

15% faster contract closeout and final payment processing

Operational Excellence Benefits: Beyond regulatory compliance, mature DCAA compliance programs drive operational improvements:

Enhanced project cost visibility enabling better pricing decisions

Improved cash flow management through accurate indirect rate projections

Reduced administrative burden through streamlined audit processes

Better risk management through continuous monitoring systems

Long-term Sustainability: As federal agencies increasingly emphasize contractor accountability and transparency, compliance requirements will continue expanding. Contractors investing in comprehensive compliance programs today position themselves for sustained growth in an evolving regulatory environment.

The choice is clear: invest in compliance as a strategic differentiator, or risk joining the ranks of contractors facing millions in penalties and lost opportunities. In the federal contracting market, compliance isn’t just about following rules—it’s about building the foundation for long-term success and profitability.

Ready to Implement DCAA-Compliant Timekeeping?

Hour Timesheet provides the complete DCAA-compliant solution your organization needs to meet federal contracting requirements. Our platform ensures accurate labor cost capture, maintains contemporaneous records, and provides the audit trails government auditors require.

Don’t risk costly compliance violations. Hour Timesheet’s proven system helps contractors maintain compliant practices while reducing administrative burden and audit preparation time.

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