DID YOU KNOW? DTIC has over 3.5 million final reports on DoD funded research, development, test, and evaluation activities available to our registered users. Click HERE
to register or log in.
Complaint Regarding Tinker Air Force Base Agreement to Pay an Unallowable Markup on a Foreign Military Sales Contract
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE) ALEXANDRIA VA
Pagination or Media Count:
We reviewed a complaint alleging that a Tinker Air Force Base contracting officer agreed to pay a 22 unallowable markup on a foreign military sales contract. The 22 markup issue involves a Foreign Military Sales base contract that was negotiated in 2004, and option years that were negotiated in 2006 and 2007. Although the contract was negotiated several years ago, we elected to review the complaint and make appropriate recommendations because Tinker Air Force Base could be allowing similar unallowable costs on current DoD and Foreign Military Sales contracts. A Tinker Air Force Base contracting officer inappropriately agreed to pay a 22 markup factor on materials transferred between affiliated contractors. As a result, a contractor received an estimated 18.3 million in additional profit under the foreign military sales contract that was unallowable. According to Federal Acquisition Regulation 31.205-26 e, Material Costs, materials transferred between affiliated companies must be based on costs incurred, excluding profit. The contracting officer allowed the markup factor even though a Defense Contract Audit Agency auditor and a Defense Contract Management Agency attorney recommended that the contracting officer disallow it. The contracting officer failed to adequately explain in the price negotiation memorandum why he did not adopt the auditor and attorney recommendations. We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, improve the quality assurance procedures to help ensure that Tinker Air Force Base contracting officers limit negotiated material costs transferred to the costs incurred, document adequate rationale in the price negotiation memorandum when they do not adopt the specialist recommendations, and take all practicable steps to obtain recoupment of the 18.3 million profit that the contracting officer had no authority to pay the DoD contractor.
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE