Withheld and Disallowed Costs from Inadequate DCAA Audit Support
Definition
When contractors cannot adequately support billed costs during DCAA audits, contracting officers withhold or permanently disallow revenue (e.g., on interim vouchers, incurred cost proposals, or progress billings). This results in immediate cash shortfalls and, if not resolved, permanent revenue loss on cost-reimbursable and flexibly priced contracts.
Key Findings
- Financial Impact: Common DCAA practice is to recommend withholds of 5–15% of billings or disallow questioned costs; in a 2023 DCAA report to Congress, auditors questioned $3.7 billion in costs across all audits, a significant share attributable to inadequate supporting documentation and non‑compliant systems, implying recurring multi‑million‑dollar leakage for larger defense/aerospace manufacturers each year.
- Frequency: Monthly
- Root Cause: Non‑compliant accounting systems, weak timekeeping and labor charging controls, and poor audit‑trail documentation during DCAA preparation mean that when an audit or voucher review occurs, contractors cannot substantiate all billed costs, so DCAA questions or disallows them and contracting officers reduce or suspend payments.
Why This Matters
This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Defense and Space Manufacturing.
Affected Stakeholders
CFO, Controller, Government Compliance Manager, Program Finance/Project Accountant, Contracts Manager, Billing/AR Specialists
Deep Analysis (Premium)
Financial Impact
$1.2M - $5M annually per prime contractor in questioned subcontractor costs, delayed payments to subs, and potential cost disallowance on FFP/CR portions of contract • $1.5M–$6M per contract (NASA contracts often range $20–100M); multi-year projects accumulate configuration drift that auditors flag as unsubstantiated cost growth • $1.8M - $6.2M annually in cost disallowances and interim payment withholding (6-11% of monthly billings on $20M-$80M annual DHS contract portfolio); extended audit cycles add 60+ days to payment settlement
Current Workarounds
Ad-hoc cost recovery journals, manual timesheet reconciliation in Excel before audit submission, shadow cost books maintained by Program Controller, undocumented cost transfers between cost centers • Adapted Excel templates (often from prime contractor audit kits); manual cost allocation to FMS programs; email-based approval chains; reliance on prime contractor guidance rather than independent compliance • Compartmentalized cost tracking in classified networks (SIPRNET), manual cost adjustments outside primary accounting system, printed cost reports stored in secure facilities, verbal cost justifications to auditors
Get Solutions for This Problem
Full report with actionable solutions
- Solutions for this specific pain
- Solutions for all 15 industry pains
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
Methodology & Sources
Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.
Related Business Risks
Excessive Internal Labor and Consultant Spend on DCAA Audit Fire‑Drills
Rework and Re‑submission of Incurred Cost and Supporting Schedules After DCAA Findings
Payment Delays from DCAA‑Driven Voucher Holds and Questioned Costs
Finance and Program Management Capacity Consumed by DCAA Audit Cycles
Penalties, Interest, and Adverse Rate Adjustments from DCAA Non‑Compliance
Labor Mischarging and Cost Misallocation Uncovered by DCAA Floor Checks
Request Deep Analysis
🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence