Our last closely examined area of the proposed rule brings us back to the topic of subcontracting. The following Purchasing System Administration clause is noteworthy for subcontractors as well as prime contractors.
"252.244–7XXX Contractor purchasing system administration.
As prescribed in 244.305–7X, insert the following clause:
Contractor Purchasing System Administration (Date)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—
Deficiency means a failure to maintain any element of an acceptable purchasing system.
Purchasing system means the Contractor’s system or systems for purchasing and subcontracting including make or buy decisions, the selection of vendors, analysis of quoted prices, negotiation of prices with vendors, placing and administering of orders, and expediting delivery of materials."
Note that the defined purchasing system includes systems for subcontracting and information related to subcontractors and their proposals to, and contracts with, the prime contractor. It is important to note that this proposed rule 252.244–7XXX is a business-transaction-information-and-documentation-requirement as well as a business systems and business systems administration rule. It almost looks like the beginning of a required ISO quality management system for purchasing transactions and documentation. Also, please note that there is no exception or exclusion in this definition for very small vendors.
The clause continues:
"Purchasing system includes, but is not limited to—
(1) Internal audits or management reviews, training, and policies and procedures for the purchasing department to ensure the integrity of the purchasing system;
(2) Policies and procedures to assure purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flow down clauses, including terms and conditions required by the prime contract and any clauses required to carry out the requirements of the prime contract;"
Training for many contractor purchasing departments is often occasional and insufficient. If adopted in some similar form, such a final rule may trigger greater attention to in-house and externally sourced training. Also in that event, more attention by contractors to their policies and procedures for purchasing departments will likely be necessary to avoid possible deficiency findings. An annual review of all purchasing department policies and procedures, and documentation confirming the thoroughness of that review, will now be more important than ever before. These points seem supported by subsequent paragraphs of this proposed FAR that are noted below. Overall, a final rule similar to the proposed rule would discourage caviler treatment of company policies and procedures. The withholding penalties would be too extreme to risk.
The clause continues:
"(3) An organizational and administrative structure that ensures effective and efficient procurement of required quality materials and parts at the most economical cost from responsible and reliable sources;
(4) Selection processes to ensure the most responsive and responsible sources for furnishing required quality parts and materials and to promote competitive sourcing among dependable suppliers so that purchases are reasonably priced and from sources that meet contractor quality requirements;"
Given such requirements in a final rule, increased use of ISO qualified subcontractors seems highly desirable.
The clause continues:
(5) Performance of price or cost analysis on purchasing actions; and
Presumably explanatory documentation of these analyzes would be necessary. Paragraph 252.244–7XXX(c)(5) below seems to support that thought.
The clause continues:
(6) Procedures to ensure that proper types of subcontracts are selected and that there are controls over subcontracting, including oversight and surveillance of subcontracted effort.
It will be interesting to see whether supplemental requirements will be added over time such as details of necessary elements in a subcontracting and subcontracts oversight and surveillance procedure. How far will contractors have to go in their subcontracting procedures in order to satisfy the government? Will a new internal or external legal audit and formal opinion-letter certification eventually become viewed as helpful or necessary?
The clause continues:
(b) General. The Contractor shall establish and maintain an acceptable purchasing system. Failure to maintain an acceptable purchasing system, as defined in this clause, may result in disapproval of the system by the ACO and/or withholding of payments.
(c) System requirements. (1) Have an adequate system description including policies, procedures, and operating instructions that comply with the FAR and DFARS.
Note in 252.244–7XXX(c)(1) above the words "policies, procedures, and operating instructions that comply with the FAR and DFARS". Couple these requirements with 252.244–7XXX(b)’s statement above that: "Failure to maintain an acceptable purchasing system, as defined in this clause, may result in disapproval of the system by the ACO and/or withholding of payments." What do you conclude? Consider the following possible conclusions.
1) Perfection Required Regarding DFARS. Under the proposed 252.244–7XXX(b) and (c)(1) it appears that less that perfect (i) awareness or knowledge, (ii) interpretation and understanding, and (iii) application or implementation, of all applicable then-current DFARS in "policies, procedures, and operating instructions" may result in payment withholding or purchasing system disapproval.
Requirements for contractor perfection are often problematic. In connection with 252.244–7XXX(b)’s statement above, how will "an acceptable purchasing system" be defined specifically or precisely, in other words, in greater detail than by 252.244–7XXX(c)’s criteria? To illustrate, how quickly must subcontractor invoices be approved or rejected, and if approved, paid? Is it "acceptable" to pay a subcontractor within 60 or 90 days of invoice receipt, or of invoice approval? Will delays longer that a few weeks or a month be viewed as a deficiency? Software systems for the purchasing function are common among contractors. Is it "acceptable" if a new release from a software licensor contains a bug that takes weeks or months to be fixed when the bug affects the contractor’s purchasing system, for example, changing the calculations or other content in invoices or purchase orders? It is hard to be perfect when you do not know the details of all requirements.
2) Confusing "Mandatory" Versus "Optional" Inconsistency. There appears to be a confusing inconsistency between "252.242–7XXX, Business Systems" that we previously reviewed, and "252.244–7XXX Contractor purchasing system administration".
(i) In 252.242–7XXX, Business Systems, we see a mandatory penalty. Note the mandate in 252.242–7XXX(c)(2): "If the ACO determines that the Contractor’s business system contains deficiencies, the final determination will include a notice of a decision to withhold payments." Next, note the mandate in 252.242–7XXX(d)(1) to "immediately withhold ten percent of each of the Contractor’s payments under this contract" for deficiencies in a business system. We must remember of course that a purchasing system is a type of covered business system.
(ii) However, in 252.244–7XXX(b)’s statement we see an optional penalty: "Failure to maintain an acceptable purchasing system, as defined in this clause, may result in disapproval of the system by the ACO and/or withholding of payments."
Which is it, "will" or "may" withhold payments? There appears to be no explanation.
3) ACO Inconsistency. We must recognize the probability that ACOs will not be consistent across contracts and over time. Inconsistency in ACO actions is a major danger in the near future after the final rule issues, and years later, because of potential unexpected withholdings for reasons not triggering a withholding under (i) a contractor’s other then-current, in-progress contracts, (ii) a competitor’s then-current contracts, or (iii), in the future, under a contractor’s old contracts. The same ACO may be consistent, but the consistency issue clearly arises with different ACOs. Inconsistent withholding decisions seem unavoidable even if ACOs receive training in an attempt to minimize them. After all, ACO actions are not the actions of judges in courts of law who are bound by precedent. Undoubtedly there will be some inconsistencies across contracts or over time that will be reasonable and fair given the respective surrounding circumstances, but equally undoubtedly other inconsistencies across contracts or over time will be unreasonable, unfair, costly, and may lead to considerable harm to the contractor involved and its workforce, shareholders, and senior management.
4) Uncertainty. The lack of details in DFAR requirements, on the one hand, and ACO inconsistency, on the other hand, will likely initiate and maintain some degree of contractor uncertainty over which application or implementation imperfections or idiosyncrasies will be "acceptable" in any particular newly-awarded contract and at any particular point in time. Focusing only on purchasing systems for the moment, the potential withholding or system disapproval consequences of a purchasing system imperfection are draconian. The risk of payment withholding or purchasing system disapproval due to imperfections is too dire to treat lightly. Assuming the requirements of the final Business Systems DFAR are at least somewhat similar to those of the proposed DFAR, it will be highly desirable for contractors to undertake any reasonable steps to improve DFAR (i) awareness or knowledge, and (ii) interpretation and understanding. Contractors would not want one of these more controllable sources of risk to trigger a withholding. Application or implementation imperfections or idiosyncrasies will cause more than enough problems. Overall, awareness and knowledge failures, and interpretation and understanding failures, must be minimized.
5) Best Solutions. It follows that prudence suggests discontinuing any reliance on sources for DFARS, and FARS as well, that are unnecessarily incomplete or less than reasonably current. Prudence further suggests more vigilant research into and analysis of new DFARS, and FARS as well, rather than accepting prevalent internal interpretations without question because they may be blind to, or may incompletely recognize, some potential dangers.
Assuming the requirements of the final DFAR Business Systems rule are at least somewhat similar to those of the proposed rule, the time will have come for more attention to, and more professionalism in, FAR/DFAR awareness/knowledge, and FAR/DFAR interpretation and understanding. Occasional and piece-meal updating of FARS and DFARS is no longer adequate in an environment of countless new grounds for a withholding penalty. Occasionally discussing proposed or new FARS/DFARS is insufficient. Occasionally finding and reviewing an article on the interpretation of a proposed or new FAR/DFAR is insufficient. Contractors need a FAR/DFAR management system.
