<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE dita
  PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Composite//EN" "ditabase.dtd">
<dita xmlns:ditaarch="http://dita.oasis-open.org/architecture/2005/"
      ditaarch:DITAArchVersion="1.2"
      domains="(topic task)                            (topic concept)                            (topic concept glossentry)                            (topic concept glossgroup)                            (topic reference)                            (topic troubleshooting++task) (topic task)                            (topic abbrev-d)                            a(props deliveryTarget)                            (topic equation-d)                            (topic hazard-d)                            (topic hi-d)                            (topic indexing-d)                            (topic markup-d)                            (topic mathml-d)                            (topic pr-d)                            (topic relmgmt-d)                            (topic sw-d)                            (topic svg-d)                            (topic ui-d)                            (topic ut-d)                            (topic markup-d xml-d)                            (topic task strictTaskbody-c)   ">
   <concept id="DFARS_PGI_215.406-1"
            outputclass="4"
            ditaarch:DITAArchVersion="1.2"
            class="- topic/topic concept/concept ">
      <title class="- topic/title ">
         <ph props="autonumber" class="- topic/ph ">PGI 215.406-1</ph> Prenegotiation objectives.</title>
      <conbody class="- topic/body  concept/conbody ">
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List1">(a) Also consider—</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3">(i) Data resulting from application of
work measurement systems in developing prenegotiation objectives;
and</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3">(ii) Field pricing assistance personnel
participation in planned prenegotiation and negotiation activities.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List1">(b) Prenegotiation objectives, including
objectives related to disposition of findings and recommendations
contained in preaward and postaward contract audit and other advisory
reports, shall be documented and reviewed in accordance with departmental
procedures.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3">(i) <i class="+ topic/ph hi-d/i ">Significant Disagreements.</i> (A)
Contracting officers and contract auditors have complementary roles
in the contracting process and are expected to collaborate to determine
fair and reasonable contract values, in accordance with <xref href="http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/memos/20091204%20Resolving%20Contract%20Audit%20Recommendations.pdf"
                  format="pdf"
                  scope="external"
                  class="- topic/xref ">Director, Defense Procurement
and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated December 4, 2009, Subject:
Resolving Contract Audit Recommendations</xref>. When a significant
disagreement arises on questioned costs, the contracting officer
and the auditor shall discuss the basis of the disagreement. The
contracting officer shall document that discussion and their disagreement
in a written communication to the auditor. The contracting officer
shall also document the disagreement in the prenegotiation objective
(or pre-business clearance). The contracting officer may then proceed with
negotiations when the prenegotiation objectives are approved.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List4">(B) A significant disagreement is defined
as the contracting officer planning to sustain less than 75-percent
of the total recommended questioned costs in a Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) audit report of a contractor proposal for an
initial contract or a contract modification with a value equal to
or greater than $10 million. It does not apply to costs that DCAA
has categorized as unsupported or unresolved in its audit report.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List1"> (ii)<i class="+ topic/ph hi-d/i "> Adjudication Procedures. </i>DCAA has <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">3</ph> days to elevate the issues within the contracting officer’s activity after receipt of the contracting <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">officer’s</ph> written communication confirming the disagreement. Furthermore, DCAA may appeal the significant issues up the chain of command as established in each <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">c</ph>omponent’s “Resolving Contract Audit Recommendations” policy. If issues remain, the Director, DCAA may escalate from the Defense <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">c</ph>omponent’s <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">h</ph>ead of <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">c</ph>ontracting <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">a</ph>ctivity or <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">s</ph>enior <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">p</ph>rocurement <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">e</ph>xecutive, to the <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">Principal</ph> Director, <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">DPC</ph>. If the DCAA Director believes that the <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">Principal</ph> Director, DP<ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">C</ph> has not adequately addressed the matter, the disagreement may finally be elevated to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition<ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023"> and Sustainment</ph>, , and the Comptroller.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3"> (iii) Notwithstanding the above, the Director, DCAA, may always raise audit issues to the <ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">Principal</ph> Director, DP<ph class="- topic/ph " rev="Revised August 17, 2023">C</ph>.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List1"> (c) <i class="+ topic/ph hi-d/i ">Cost estimates for program baselines and contract negotiations for major defense acquisition programs.</i>
         </p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3">(i) For the purpose of contract negotiations
and obligation of funds under this paragraph, the Government shall
prepare cost analyses and targets based on the Government's reasonable
expectation of successful contractor performance in accordance with
the contractor's proposal and previous experience.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List3">(ii) Cost estimates developed for baseline
descriptions and other program purposes by the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation pursuant to its functions, do
not meet the criteria described in paragraph (c)(i) of this subsection
and, thus, shall not be used for purposes of developing the Government’s
contract negotiation position or for the obligation of funds. However,
the Government may consider the data used to develop such estimates
when developing the cost analyses and targets described in paragraph
(c)(i) of this subsection.</p>
         <p class="- topic/p " outputclass="List1">(d) See Frequently asked ‘Questions and
Answers” at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/sec_808_NDAA.html
relating to the limitations placed on the Department of Defense
for aggregate annual amounts available for contracted services in accordance
with section 808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
year 2012, P.L. 112-81 and DFARS Class Deviation 2012-O0012, Limitation
on Amounts Available for Contracted Services, dated July 31, 2012.</p>
      </conbody>
   </concept>
</dita>
