When addressing whether specific costs are treated direct or indirect, the CAS Disclosure Statement has a classification of "sometimes direct/sometimes indirect." It is clear the CASB did not favor continual changing of cost treatment with each new contract so it established this category. Generally it depends upon how the contractor defines the structure of its cost accounting system. For example, a contractor has a computer center charged out based on usage. When a contract requires computer services, it is charged for those services as a direct cost of the contract; when the computer service center performs work for the finance function, the charges for the services flow to the G&A pool and become an indirect cost. Likewise, a contractor might define all material and supplies in an undifferentiated category where those that are identified with a contract are direct while those that are immaterial in amount or used for overhead or G&A activities are included in those pools as an indirect cost. The requirement of consistency is achieved not by whether the cost flows as a direct cost to a contract or to an indirect cost pool but in the manner of charging work performed. In the case of the computer service, a charge was determined for all work performed and that charge was assessed against the customer for work – if the customer is direct the cost is direct and if the customer is indirect, the cost is indirect. The underlying essential ingredient is the beneficial/causal relationship existing between the activity/task and the cost objective to which the cost flows.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}