The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received about 200 comments from governmental units, Federal agencies, professional organizations and others in response to the Federal Register notice of August 19, 1993 (58 FR 44212). All comments were considered in developing this final revision.
OMB also considered the National Performance Review's recommendations to reduce paperwork and red tape. Changes were made to the Circular to streamline the cost negotiation process and defer to State and local accounting procedures whenever possible. Also, the policy guides in the Circular were amended to provide that Federal agencies should work with States or localities which wish to test alternative mechanisms for paying costs for administering Federal programs.
Section B presents a summary of the major public comments grouped by subject and a response to each comment. Other changes have been made to increase clarity and readability. Section C addresses procurement issues. Section D discusses the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
Comment: The policy subsection states that "no provision for profit or increment above allowable cost is intended." This statement is currently contained in the Circular, but it is different from that contained in other OMB cost principles circulars and is literally incorrect. This seems to say no profit or increment above cost is permitted.
Response: This sentence was changed to conform with the other OMB cost principles circulars. There is no policy change intended by this change.
Comment: The requirement in the basic guidelines that "a cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to a Federal award as an indirect cost" appears to be too expansive and should be clarified.
Response: There is no policy change intended from that in the existing Circular. The wording in the consistency provision was changed to make it clear that all costs incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances are either direct costs only or indirect costs only with respect to final cost objectives (e.g., grants). No final cost objective shall have allocated to it as an indirect cost any cost if other costs incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances, have been included as a direct cost of that or any other final cost objective. For example, a grantee normally allocates all travel as an indirect cost. For purposes of a new grant proposal, the grantee intends to allocate the travel costs of personnel whose time is accounted for as direct labor directly to the grant. Since travel costs of personnel whose time is accounted for as direct labor working on other grants are costs which are incurred for the same purpose, these costs may no longer be included within indirect cost pools for purposes of allocation to any other grant.
Comment: The Circular lists the market price of comparable goods or services as one test of reasonableness. This statement may cause problems for State agencies that are required to make purchases from State-wide contracts.
Response: OMB recognizes that market fluctuations may result in a State paying higher prices on State-wide contracts. However, significant differences between State prices and market prices should be analyzed. For example, Federal awards should not be paying higher prices for State awards based on geographical preferences.
Comment: The prohibition against shifting costs allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective to other Federal awards needs to be clarified. Governmental units should not be precluded from shifting allowable cost in accordance with program agreements.
Response: This section was expanded to recognize that there are instances when it may be appropriate for governmental units to transfer costs from one cost objective to another cost objective.
Comment: It is not logical to require governmental units to allocate indirect costs to all activities including donated services.
Response: The Circular is designed to provide that Federal awards bear their fair share of costs. If non-Federal activities use donated services that require a substantial amount of support costs, it would be inequitable to charge these costs to Federal awards.
Comment: The section on applicable credits needs to be clarified.
Response: The language in this section has been revised to remove inappropriate examples of applicable credits and references to program income which are covered by the grants management common rule.
Comment: Clarify the allowability of certain public relations type costs, such as job fairs and activities to promote ridership on public transportation.
Response: The allowability of these types of costs depends upon the circumstances surrounding the individual case. In determining whether Federal awards should participate in these types of costs, the recipient should consider how similar types of costs are charged, and whether there is a direct benefit to Federal awards resulting from these costs.
Comment: The Circular limits the allowability of audit costs to single audits and does not provide reimbursement for audits of a less comprehensive nature.
Response: This section was revised to allow the costs of other audits.
Comment: The requirement for governmental units to amortize the costs associated with the development and testing of automated systems would impose an unreasonable financial and administrative burden on the governmental units.
Response: OMB eliminated the requirement for governmental units to amortize the costs of developing and testing automated systems until a uniform Federal policy covering all types of recipients of Federal awards can be developed.
Comment: The potential paperwork burdens associated with accounting for employee leave payments and accruals could be substantial.
Response: This section was simplified by modifying many of the prescriptive accounting rules for leave.
Comment: Interest cost associated with pension contributions should be allowed if the governmental unit's contributions are delayed.
Response: References to interest payments were deleted. However, language was inserted into the Circular to make it clear that Federal reimbursement of pension cost must be adjusted when the governmental unit's payments to the fund are late. The adjustment should compensate for the additional cost because of the timing of the charges to the Federal Government and the governmental unit's contribution to the pension fund.
Comment: Governmental units should not be required to use separate cost allocation procedures for classes of employees that experience different actuarial gains and losses (e.g., police and fire departments).
Response: This requirement was deleted from the Circular.
Comment: The requirement that a governmental unit obtain Federal approval for changing its method for determining pension and post-retirement health benefit costs should be deleted.
Response: This requirement was deleted. Pension costs and post- retirement health benefit costs determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the provisions of the Circular will be allowable. For contracts covered under Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), CAS 412 and 413 promulgated by the Cost Accounting Standards Board shall establish the allocability of pension costs.
Comment: The current principles applicable to support of personnel costs have worked well and require no change.
Response: OMB believes additional guidance is necessary. Federal agencies have found that the absence of sufficient guidance on documentation to support salaries charged to Federal awards has caused numerous audit findings and resulted in endless wasted hours of negotiation between Federal agencies and governmental units. Based on the comments received, OMB made a number of changes to the requirements in this section of the Circular to clarify and simplify Federal requirements for documenting salaries charged to Federal awards.
Comment: OMB proposed to substantially amend the provisions on the allowability of legal and related expenses. In the 1981 version of the Circular, this provision is found at Attachment B, section 16 (46 FR 9552). In the latest proposal, the proposed revisions were at Attachment B, section 14 (58 FR 44222).
State and local governments contended that the proposed revisions on the allowability of legal and related expenses would be unfair and would deny them due process.
State and local governments also objected to the specific proposed revisions dealing with legal proceedings based on the Major Fraud Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 31.205-47) in Attachment B, sections 14.a. through f. State and local governments contended that those provisions are ambiguous, inconsistent and overly broad. In addition, these commenters argued that the provisions were designed for commercial contractors and should not be applied to grants.
Response: After reviewing the comments on the proposed revisions, OMB decided not to amend the current provision on the allowability of legal and related expenses. In the revised Circular, this provision is now found at section 14.b.
In this revision, OMB has added a provision at section 14.a. This provision, which was in the proposal, simply restates the currently-applicable, statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 2324(k).
Comment: It is unclear if a use charge can be charged while an asset is in service.
Response: The Circular now provides that a reasonable use allowance may be negotiated for fully depreciated assets; therefore, OMB believes a reasonable use allowance could be negotiated for an asset for as long as the asset is in service.
Comment: It is not clear whether accelerated depreciation is allowed.
Response: The preferred method of depreciation is the straight line method. However, other methods may be used when there is evidence that an asset will be used up faster in the earlier portion of its useful life.
Comment: The estimated useful lives of equipment and buildings used to compute use allowances should be shortened.
Response: No changes were made. Governmental units have the option of claiming depreciation which is usually based on the actual life of the asset.
Comment: It is not clear why classes of assets needed to be determined on a State-wide, local-wide, or Tribal-wide basis.
Response: This section was amended to say classes of assets shall be determined on the same bases used for the governmental unit's financial statements.
Comment: The capitalization level for equipment seems to be arbitrarily low. The criterion of $25,000, which is recognized by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), might be more appropriate.
Response: The $5000 criterion is in line with capitalization levels used by government contractors and others. The HHS criterion is limited to equipment used on a few very large programs where equipment purchases are a very small percentage of total program costs. For CAS-covered contracts subject to "full coverage", the threshold for equipment is $1500 as established under CAS 404.
Comment: Clarify the term "article" as used in the definition of equipment. The Circular defines equipment "as being an article of nonexpendable property."
Response: The definition of "capital expenditure" was added to further define the term "equipment." However, if further guidance is needed in this area, governmental units should follow their own accounting practices when defining equipment.
Comment: It is not clear what is meant by "The total acquisition costs are not allowable as indirect costs during the period acquired."
Response: This section was clarified. It now says that capital expenditures which are not authorized to be charged directly to an award may be recovered through use allowances or depreciation.
Comment: The impact of depreciation as proposed in the Circular would shift costs to the governmental unit, not make any provision for the time value of money, increase administrative costs to track resulting depreciation schedules, and erode the partner relationship between Federal agencies and governmental units.
Response: The accounting treatment for depreciation as prescribed by the Circular is based on GAAP. Further, the provisions ensure that the Federal Government pays its fair share of costs, including interest on financing.
Comment: It is not clear whether costs related to raising funds from employees within an organization for charitable activities, such as the United Way, would be allowable since the Circular disallows fund raising costs.
Response: Generally, the prohibition on fund raising activities covered by the Circular is for those activities where the governmental unit raises funds for its own use. Incidental fund raising from an organization's own employees for charitable organizations, such as the United Way, is considered part of normal operating expenses and, therefore, allowable.
Comment: The provisions which would require governmental units to reimburse the Federal Government when Federal awards were relocated from facilities where the Federal Government participated in the financing is inappropriate.
Response: This section was amended. It now requires governmental units to obtain prior approval from the cognizant agency for substantial relocations of Federal awards from buildings for which the Federal Government participated in the financing.
Comment: It is not apparent why provisions for liabilities, which do not become payable for more than one year after a self insurance provision is made, are limited to the discounted value of the liability.
Response: This requirement is designed to cover only those cases where the amount of the liability is firm or reasonably certain. This provision helps to avoid excessive reserve balances for the current fiscal year. It limits current year premiums to the present value of the future (known or reasonably certain) liability. When that future liability becomes due, prior years premiums plus earnings (i.e., interest or investment income) from those premiums will be available to satisfy that debt.
Comment: The Circular states that self-insurance reserves must be based on sound actuarial principles using the most likely assumptions. This seems to be an attempt to limit sound actuarial principles.
Response: This language was not intended to restrict sound actuarial principles. The language was changed to clarify that sound actuarial assumptions should recognize actual past, as well as probable future, events when determining premiums and reserve levels.
Comment: Interest expense should be allowable not only for building modifications, as provided in the 1981 revision of Circular A-87, but also for acquisitions of equipment made prior to the issuance date of the revised Circular. The proposed provision is objectionable because it would require dual records and impose an unreasonable and unnecessary administrative burden on State and local governments.
Response: The provision was rewritten to allow interest expense paid or incurred on or after the revised Circular's effective date to be charged to Federal awards for existing as well as newly-acquired equipment.
Historically, OMB has not allowed interest on debt issued prior to the effective date of an interest policy revision (pre-revision debt). In 1980, OMB allowed State and local governments interest on debt issued to acquire buildings, but not on pre-revision debt (45 FR 27363). In 1982, in a revision to Circular A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," OMB allowed interest on debt issued to acquire buildings and equipment, but not on pre-revision debt (47 FR 33658). In 1994, in a proposed revision to Circular A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," OMB proposed to allow interest debt issued to acquire buildings and equipment, but not on pre-revision debt (59 FR 49091).
In view of the fact that pre-revision debt was incurred with full knowledge of the cost policy that was in effect at that time, OMB does not believe that grantees should expect the Federal Government to allow interest on this debt without such a decision being cost-justified from the Federal Government's perspective. OMB believes the Federal Government should only allow interest on pre-revision debt when the cost of maintaining dual records on pre-revision and post-revision assets and related debt (all or a portion of these recordkeeping costs are chargeable to the Federal programs as administrative costs) is less than the interest cost on pre-revision debt.
With respect to debt incurred to purchase buildings, OMB believes that the cost of maintaining dual records is cost-justified in view of the limited number of buildings and debt issues for which separate records would have to be maintained, and the substantial interest cost associated with long term debt used to finance buildings. Thus, as OMB has previously explained, "[a]applying the new rules to old buildings would appear to provide a windfall recovery, and might drive up overhead costs of federally assisted programs" (47 FR 33658, also see 45 FR 27363).
Equipment acquired by State and local governments (except computers), while substantial in terms of the number of pieces, is relatively nominal in cost and has a relatively short life span. As a result, the outstanding interest on debt issued to finance this equipment is relatively nominal. Moreover, State and local governments would still bear the major share of the financing costs, even if pre-revision debt were allowable. By contrast, the cost of maintaining dual records for a large number of items and related debt would likely be substantial. Given the different balance between administrative and interest costs, OMB has decided that, in this instance, the administrative costs associated with maintaining separate records to track pre-revision and post-revision debt is not cost-justifiable from the Federal Government's perspective.
The basis for the allowance of pre-revision debt for equipment of State and local governments is consistent with the basis for OMB's treatment of such debt for educational institutions (in 1982) and OMB's proposed treatment of such debt for non-profit organizations (in 1994). The cost of equipment acquired by educational institutions and non-profit organizations through debt financing can be significant (e.g., over $650,000 for x-ray crystallography equipment, $348,000 for a vantage flow cytometer for high speed cell analysis, and $265,000 for an electron microscope). Equipment of this type and related debt has a longer life, and in turn, significantly higher interest cost. Moreover, as with buildings, there are only a limited number of pieces of such equipment, which reduces the administrative costs of dual records. Given the amount of interest involved in the financing of these assets compared with the relatively nominal administrative burden associated with maintaining dual records, OMB believes the cost of maintaining dual records is justifiable.
Comment: The requirement for a governmental unit to document, as part of its decisionmaking process, that capital leasing is the most economical option does not belong in Circular A-87.
Response: The requirement for lease analysis as part of the governmental unit's decisionmaking process and its proper documentation is addressed in the Grants Management Common Rule under Section __.36(b)(4). This requirement is not addressed in Circular A-87.
Comment: Governmental units would not recover their full costs because of provisions in the Circular which provide that a credit is due the Federal Government when Federal payments for interest, depreciation, use charges and other contributions for building use exceed the interest and principal payments made by the government (positive cash flow).
Response: OMB deleted the provisions in the Circular which would require credits under the conditions described above. However, governmental units will be required to negotiate the amount of allowable interest whenever cash payments (interest, use allowances, depreciation and contributions) exceed governmental unit cash payments and other governmental unit contributions. OMB will study this matter further to ensure fair and equitable policies are established for the States and the Federal Government.
Comment: Membership costs in some civic and community organizations should be allowable when the purpose is to promote services provided by the Federal award.
Response: The language has been revised to allow memberships in civic and community organizations as a direct cost with the prior approval of the Federal awarding agency.
Comment: Simplify the section on professional service costs by eliminating the factors to consider in determining the allowability of professional service costs.
Response: Eight subsections listing the factors were deleted.
Comment: It is not clear why proposal costs should normally be treated as indirect costs and allocated to all activities. Such costs should be treated as direct costs if they can be identified with a specific award.
Response: OMB added a provision to allow governmental units to charge proposal costs directly to a Federal award with the prior approval of the Federal awarding agency.
Comment: If OMB adopts the proposed revision affecting sales tax reimbursement, the revision should become effective at some later date to allow time to change State and local laws.
Response: OMB agrees that there should be a phase-in period. The Circular allows governmental units three years to phase-in the change.
Comment: If the sales tax proposal were adopted, it would become a burden to separately account for State sales taxes paid on Federal grant purchases.
Response: The Circular allows reasonable approximations to be used where the identification of the actual amount of unallowed taxes would require an inordinate amount of effort.
Comment: State sales taxes should be allowable when a governmental unit is in a position that makes exclusion administratively impossible, i.e., when employees in travel status must pay sales taxes upon receipt of goods and services.
Response: States should attempt a reasonable approximation.
Comment: Some State and local governments and Indian Tribal governments would lose substantial amounts of revenue if sales taxes were not chargeable to purchases made in connection with federally-funded programs.
Response: The intention of the tax provision is to address State or local government taxes, or changes in tax policy, that disproportionately affect a federally-funded program. Under the Circular, such taxes are unallowable. (As explained in the next comment-and-response, where a Federal statute prescribes a different treatment for taxes, that statute controls.)
For example, a tax would disproportionately affect a Federal program if the tax were defined or applied so that it was imposed only in connection with that program, or only in connection with Federal programs generally. Another example would be if a sales tax were imposed on a good or service that in practice is used solely or disproportionately in connection with Federal programs. These examples are for illustration, and are not meant to be exclusive. Whether a particular tax, or change in tax policy, would disproportionately affect a Federal program will have to be determined based on a review of the tax and the Federal programs in question.
When a governmental unit pays a tax to itself, that self-assessed tax is not a true cost to the governmental unit. Especially where a self-assessed tax disproportionately affects a Federal program, it is not appropriate for the governmental unit to be able to characterize that tax as a "cost" of its participation in the Federal program. If such disproportionate, self-assessed taxes were treated as allowable, even though they disproportionately affect Federal programs, governmental units could define or apply taxes in such a way that their net impact would largely be to increase the Federal Government's contribution, rather than to raise revenues from the taxpayer. To the extent that making such taxes unallowable would result in a loss of Federal assistance awards, the Circular allows three years for governmental units to phase-out any existing taxes that disproportionately affect Federal programs. (For the larger formula grant programs, the disallowance of such taxes would not result in any loss of Federal assistance awards; the funds which are now used to pay self-assessed taxes could be used to further the objectives of the Federal assistance.)
Comment: The proposed revision on sales taxes is directly contrary to the legislative intent of Public Law 102-234, "Medicaid Voluntary Contributions and Provider Specific Tax Amendments of 1991." The proposal should be revised to preclude its application to broad-based health care related taxes paid by public entities.
Response: The Circular would not take precedence over a statute. If any statute specifically prescribes policies and specific requirements that differ from the Circular, the statute will govern.
Comment: State sales taxes collected by another level of government should be exempt from the provisions of the Circular.
Response: As noted above, the Circular's disallowance is directed at self-assessed taxes. Thus, if a local government receives an award directly from the Federal Government, and pays a State sales tax on purchases made in connection with that award, the tax is an allowable cost. (However, as previously noted, the Circular does not restrict the authority of Federal agencies to identify taxes where Federal participation is inappropriate.)
However, if the local government does not receive the award directly from the Federal Government, but instead receives the award indirectly by virtue of a State pass-through, then the sales tax that the local government pays the State is in reality a self-assessed tax, which would be unallowable if the tax disproportionately affects a Federal program.
Comment: It is not clear whether the prohibition on payment of sales taxes applies to out-of-state sales tax.
Response: Since they are not self-assessed, taxes assessed by other States, or political subdivisions of other States, are not unallowable under the Circular. (However, as previously noted, the Circular does not restrict the authority of Federal agencies to identify taxes where Federal participation is inappropriate.)
Comment: Airfare costs in excess of the lowest available commercial discount fare are unallowable. With today's confusing array of super savers and fare wars, the burden involved in proving the lowest airfare would be considerable.
Response: The travel provisions were changed to say travel costs in excess of the customary standard (coach or equivalent) airfare are unallowable.
State/Local-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans - Attachment C
Comment: Working capital reserves in many cases should not be limited to 60 days cash expenses. Time consuming collections, uneven usage levels, and unanticipated demand for services are some of the reasons for authorizing a larger reserve.
Response: OMB believes the 60 day reserve should provide the flexibility required by most funds to operate from one billing cycle to the next. However, the Circular was amended to provide for a larger reserve in exceptional cases when approved by the cognizant Federal agency.
Comment: The Circular should not restrict governmental units from engaging an accounting firm to prepare an indirect cost proposal and then engaging the same firm to make subsequent audits.
Response: This provision was deleted from the Circular. This issue will be addressed as part of OMB policy changes to other OMB grants management circulars.
Comment: What are the criteria OMB uses for making cognizant assignments and for defining "major governments"?
Response: OMB is in the process of reviewing the cognizant assignments for governmental units. Only governmental units receiving substantial amounts of direct Federal assistance will be assigned a Federal cognizant agency and be required to submit plans to those cognizant agencies. Because the mix of Federal awards has changed so much since the last list was issued, OMB needs to develop a new dollar criterion for defining "major."
Comment: States and other prime grantees should not be required to monitor subrecipient cost allocation plans and/or negotiate sub-recipient indirect costs.
Response: The grants management common rule requires governmental units to monitor subawards to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements. These requirements include compliance with the cost principles. In those cases where the subrecipient does not receive any Federal awards directly from the Federal Government, Federal agencies would not have any direct responsibility for negotiating indirect costs.
Comment: Attachment C, Section E states that "The documentation requirements in this section may be modified, expanded, or reduced by the cognizant agency on a case-by-case basis." This specific sentence might allow a Federal cognizant agency to unreasonably and unilaterally expand the documentation requirements.
Response: Federal agencies should have the flexibility to obtain additional data, when necessary. However, OMB agrees that this type of request should be the exception rather than the rule.
Comment: Documentation for internal service funds seems excessive since these areas are audited. This documentation is more appropriately included in a State or local government's financial statements and work papers for the fiscal year rather than in the entity's cost allocation plan.
Response: OMB amended this section to require only the largest funds to submit data. If the required data are included in the governmental unit's financial statements, submission of the financial statements to the Federal cognizant agency will meet the requirements of the Circular.
Comment: OMB proposed to add provisions requiring the certification of cost allocation plans and of indirect cost rates (see preamble (58 FR 44218); Attachment C, Section E.4 (58 FR 44229); Attachment D, Section D.3 (58 FR 44230-31); and Attachment E, Section D.3 (58 FR 44233)). States objected to the inclusion of the phrase "under penalty of perjury" in the proposed certification. They contended that the phrase is unnecessary.
Response: OMB has decided to amend the Circular to add the proposed certifications, but OMB has accepted the commenters' suggestion that the phrase "under penalty of perjury" not be included in the certifications. OMB believes that, when the Federal Government is dealing with State and local governments, it is unnecessary to require that the certifying government official sign a certification stating that it is made "under penalty of perjury." State and local officials should not conclude, however, that the omission of the phrase "under penalty of perjury" means that no potential legal liability is associated with a certification's submission. In this regard, note the provision in Federal law imposing criminal penalties for "false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations" (18 U.S.C. 1001). The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing this provision (and other laws regarding false statements and claims). OMB expresses no opinion concerning the potential legal liabilities that are associated with making the certifications in the revised Circular.
Comment: Restricting the authority to reopen Central Service Plans to the Federal cognizant agency is inequitable.
Response: This section was changed to state that agreements may be subject to reopening only if the agreement is subsequently found to violate a statute or the information upon which the plan was negotiated is later found to be materially incomplete or inaccurate.
Comment: GAAP for State and local governments do not require internal service activities to be accounted for and reported in proprietary accounts.
Response: The requirement for internal service activities to be accounted for in proprietary accounts was deleted.
Comment: Remove the requirement that a carry forward adjustment is not permitted for a central service activity that was not included in the approved plan.
Response: The carry forward technique was intended to permit adjustments for differences between actual and estimated costs of services included in a cost allocation plan. It was not intended to shift the entire cost of an activity excluded from the year of the plan to a future year. There may be circumstances where a change to the plan should be considered (e.g., the service did not exist when the plan was established and was initiated during the year covered by the plan). This type of amendment should modify the plan itself and would not be handled through a carry forward adjustment.
Comment: Adjustments of billed services do not provide a workable solution for the larger central services of the States. The dollar limitation of $50,000 for making adjustments through allocated central services is too low.
Response: This section was rewritten to provide governmental units more options and flexibility in making adjustments to Federal awards.
Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plans - Attachment D
Comment: The public assistance cost allocation plans are narrative descriptions of cost allocation procedures rather than allocations of actual costs. The provisions dealing with refunds or adjustments related to unallowable costs and the certification of cost allowability do not appear appropriate.
Response: The certification and the provisions dealing with refunds and adjustments were deleted.
State and Local Indirect Cost Rate Proposals - Attachment E
Comment: The Circular is silent on the time period for use of predetermined rates.
Response: The Circular was amended to encourage the use of indirect cost rates for a period of two to four years.
Comment: Governmental units should notify the Federal Government of any accounting changes that might make it necessary to renegotiate the predetermined rate.
Response: A provision was added to the certification which requires the governmental unit to notify the Federal Government of any accounting changes that would effect the application of the predetermined rate.
Several procurement issues arose during the Federal Government's internal review process. This section clarifies the procurement issues.
Effective date for governmental units with predetermined rates beyond September 1, 1995
For a governmental unit that already has established indirect cost rates beyond September 1, 1995, the effective date of the revised Circular shall be at the start of the next accounting period beginning on or after September 1, 1995, for which the governmental unit has not yet established a predetermined indirect cost rate.
Depreciation method(s) for CAS-covered contracts
CAS-covered contracts subject to "full coverage" under CASB shall follow the standards promulgated by CASB in the computation of depreciation.
Allowability of interest expenses for CAS-covered contracts
For contracts subject to CAS 414 (48 CFR 9903.414, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital), and CAS 417 (48 CFR 9903.417, cost of money as an element of the cost of capital assets under construction), the imputed cost of money determined allocable in accordance with CAS 414 and 417 may be claimed as an allowable cost. When cost of money is claimed, interest shall not be an allowable direct or indirect cost under such contracts.
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, enacted on October 13, 1994, amended Section 306(e) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 256, Public Law 103-355, Section 2151, 108 Stat. 3309-12), to specify certain items of costs as not allowable under Federal covered contracts. OMB is undertaking a review of these FASA provisions, for the purpose of determining whether the unallowable cost provisions of Circular A-87, and of OMB's other cost principles circulars, should be amended in light of the FASA provisions on unallowable costs. If OMB ultimately concludes that amendments may be appropriate, OMB will issue a proposal seeking public comment on the proposed revisions.