Consulting Core Services
On-Site Training

GCA can orient the course to any  number of topics but typical ones have included:

  • Basics of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
  • FAR Cost Principles
  • Cost Accounting Standards
  • Working with DCAA
Contact Us

Don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, or problems with registration.

Phone: 1-925-362-0712

Fax: 925-362-0806

Email GCA

Subscriber Login

Path: Consulting Services arrow Report & Digest arrow GCA Report Articles arrow GCA Report 2002 arrow Basics of Uncompensated Overtime - DCAA Guidance

Basics of Uncompensated Overtime - DCAA Guidance
In practice, it is generally the determinations of the Defense Contract Audit Agency that determine whether “the government” accepts or rejects the contractor’s handling of uncompensated overtime in both bidding and costing circumstances.  It is important to understand DCAA’s guidance because (1) it is, by far, the most comprehensive and (2) is, by default, the primary basis of determining proper treatment of UOT.

DCAA’s Contract Audit Manual (DCAM) Part 6-410 addresses UOT.  Its stated goal is to determine (1) whether a contractor accounts for all hours worked and if not, whether the government materially suffers (2) whether the contractor is allocating an “equitable share” of labor costs to government contracts (e.g. is not “gaming” the system) and (3) whether all work such as UOT is included in the base for purposes of calculating indirect cost rates.

Though some agencies have advocated it, DCAA, surprisingly, does not require total time reporting unless there is a “material” inequity from the contractor’s failure to record total time.  DCAM instructs its auditors to request a copy of the contractor’s policy addressing UOT and make sure that that the contractor’s method of bidding UOT is consistent with the way it accounts for UOT.  If the contractor records only forty hours per week, the auditor is to conduct a floorcheck and/or interview exempt employees to determine whether they work more than 40 hours.  If there is UOT, the auditor is to suggest that full time recording is preferable.  If the contractor refuses, the auditor is then encouraged to expand the floorcheck/interviews to determine whether the failure to record all hours results in a “material” difference in cost allocations to contracts.  If they determine that the absence of total time reporting results in material overcharging the government, auditors are told to cite contractors for noncompliance with FAR 31.201-4 and when covered by cost accounting standards, also CAS 418.

Both FAR 31.201-4 (Determining allocability) and CAS 418 require that indirect costs bear a beneficial, causal relationship to the cost objectives to which they are allocated.  In addition, the allocation base selected (i.e. direct labor, total cost, value added, etc.) must be representative of the total cost activity performed by the contractor.  Since direct labor is usually at least one of the factors in the base, DCAA claims that failure to record all hours worked results in the exclusion of UOT hours from the base and thus the remaining hours in the base would not “bear its fair share of indirect costs” (e.g. since the denominator is lower, the resulting indirect cost rate would be too high).  

DCAA has recently emphasized that materiality must be considered when citing either a CAS 418 or FAR 31.201-4 noncompliance. Materiality, however, is not defined but is left to the auditor’s individual judgement. If materiality is asserted, DCAA is instructed to not only cite the contractor for noncompliance and require it to include all hours in its allocation base(s) but also recommends one of three methods for accounting for UOT to comply with CAS 418:

Method 1.  Calculate an average rate for each pay period, based on salary paid divided by total hours worked and allocate costs to cost objectives based on that calculated rate.  In the example cited above, if the pay period was bi-weekly and the exempt employee worked 100 hours rather than the standard 80 hours, the rate to be applied to each hour worked would be $20 ($2,000 salary/100 hours).

Method 2.  Assign the total hours on a pro rata basis to all cost objectives worked during the pay period.  In the example, the 25 hours worked on the government contract (50%) and the 25 hours worked on the commercial contract (50%) would result in applying the same percentages of salary to the respective contracts (50% of $1,000 salary or $500 to each contract).

Method 3.  Allocate costs using an estimated annual rate and credit any variance to an indirect account.  In our example, if the contractor expects the exempt employee to work 2,600 hours then his hourly rate will be $20 ($52,000 divided by 2,600 hours).  If actual hours vary, then the difference is added to the indirect pool if less than 2,600 hours and deducted if more than 2,600 hours.   

 Two variations are sometimes accepted by DCAA under certain circumstances:

Alternative Method 1.  Allocate employee’s hourly rate on a standard week and credit the indirect cost pool for excess hours at the same rate.  In our example, charge all cost objectives at $25 per hour and if the standard work week is exceeded, credit the indirect account for each hour exceeded times the same $25 per hour.

Alternative Method 2.  As a variation of Method 2 above, determine a pro rata allocation of hours worked each day and distribute the daily salary using the pro rata allocation.  In a our example, if the exempt employee worked 5 hours on a government contract and 5 hours on a commercial contract today, their $200 daily salary would be apportioned 50% to each contract for that day.

In practice, DCAA’s reaction’s to these two alternative methods vary widely.  We sometimes see complete acceptance of Alternative Method 1 while other auditors adamantly reject its use at similar type contractors, insisting on adoption of one of the three “acceptable” methods to avoid being cited for noncompliance.  Sometimes one of the alternative methods are eventually accepted after DCAA determines a lack of materiality, allocations of the “credit” to all contracts is appropriate or negotiations have demonstrated the difficulty and high cost of implementing one of the “acceptable” methods.      

If UOT is material or you plan to bid on competitions where you or others are likely to compute rates based on UOT, then it is a good idea to adopt one of DCAA’s suggested approaches.  If not, you should decide on a how you will record the eight hours (e.g. first 8 hours, last 8 hours, 9-5 hours) and commit them to writing so a method is established and implemented.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}

To discuss your needs, contact Bill Lennett, Principal, at 1-925-362-0712 or email him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

*
 
*
 
*
 
 
*
 
 
 
GCA Subscription
REPORT FEATURES
  • New Developments-Rule Changes, New Guidelines, Court Decisions
  • Feature article for Small/New Contractors
  • Practical Q&A Sections

Download & View Sample


DIGEST FEATURES
  • Experts' Discussion of "HOT" Contracting Issues
  • Analyzing a Cost Principle or Cost Accounting Standard
  • Pricing Strategies
  • Case Studies on Challenges to Government Findings

Download & View Sample


SUBSCRIBER BENEFITS
  • Free use of our "Ask the Experts" panel where subscribers can submit questions to or chat with our network of eminent consultants and attorneys.
  • Electronic access to all prior newsletters through 2000. We provide state-of-the-art word search Word and linked electronic index to all articles.
  • Mailed hard copies and electronic versions will provide timely access to all newsletters.

 Learn More

 Subscribe