paystubs

Yes

They can ask for anything, but does your contract say that you have to provide what they ask for? They aren't the IRS. They must have a contractual right to what they want.

Construction? By "pay stubs" do you mean "payroll" records? 

If this is a construction contract, see Contract clause 52.222-8 , Payrolls and Basic Records. 

You should already be submitting the information that the specialist needs, on a weekly basis per paragraph b.

Paragraph c. of the clause requires you to provide access to all the payroll records that you must maintain under paragraph a. of the clause to the KO or its authorized representative.  

EDIT: oops I misread the original post. Are you referring to a proposal for a change or for a new contract?  

If a new contract, please clarify how payroll records would apply to the new contract. Thx

Vern, I'm not sure if there is an existing contract or if this is a new contract proposal. Pat should clarify that and what he/she means by "pay stubs".

Pat, are you being required to submit certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data in regard to the proposal?

Retreadfed said:

Pat, are you being required to submit certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data in regard to the proposal?

Another good question. I hope Pat will provide the full context of the situation. It is impossible to provide a definitive response based upon the scenario described in the "Original Post".  

Years ago , when I was the construction "professor" for DAU's "Ask a Professor", I almost always had to contact the questioner to fully explain the context of their question. if I could actually discuss the question with the questioner orally, I would.   As an "old fart", I have a fundamental problem with the tendency these days to communicate in "sound bites" and to carry on conversations as though they are text messages.

The question was:

Quote

Can a contracting specialist request actual paystubs from a contractor to verify rates on a proposal?

We don't need more information from pat. The answer is the same no matter what the situation.

The answer is Yes. The elaboration on that answer is that a contract specialist can ask an offeror or a contractor for any information. But the contract specialist is not entitled to what he or she asked for unless (1) there is a contract and (2) the contract requires the contractor to provide it. Right?

An offeror can refuse. It might cost them a contract if there is competition. A contractor can refuse unless it contractually bound itself to provide what was asked for. If it did, then it must provide what was asked for or face termination for default.

What more is there to say?

Vern Edwards said:

The question was:

We don't need more information from pat. The answer is the same no matter what the situation.

The answer is Yes. The elaboration on that answer is that a contract specialist can ask an offeror or a contractor for any information. But the contract specialist is not entitled to what he or she asked for unless (1) there is a contract and (2) the contract requires the contractor to provide it. Right?

So, if there is no contract, you are saying that the KO is not entitled to information to verify what the contractor claims or states "on a proposal" that it is actually  paying.  I don't necessarily agree. 

If there is a service contract, the contract requires that the contractor allow access by the DOL to payroll information but not specifically access by the KO.  

However, if there is a proposal for a contract action under an existing service contract and the contractor is basing the proposed labor cost on what it states it is currently paying, I'd say that the KO might be entitled to information to verify the basis of the proposal.

If the proposal is for a contract action under an existing construction contract, the answer is that not only is the government entitled to the information, the contractor must submit payroll information, including employee names, anyway. 

If there is no service or construction contract and the proposer is proposing pricing on the basis of stated current hourly rates or salaries, the KO might be entitled to information to verify the  basis of the proposal. 

Pat did not say whether or not there is an existing contract - only that he/she is a contractor.

joel hoffman said:

So, if there is no contract, you are saying that the KO is not entitled to information to verify what the contractor claims or states "on a proposal" that it is actually  paying.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "entitled." There is a difference between being entitled to ask and entitled to get what you asked for.

The OP asked: "Can a contracting specialist request actual paystubs from a contractor to verify rates on a proposal?" That's another way of asking if the contract specialist is entitled to ask for for the pay stubbs. My answer: Sure. Yes.

But I guess the OP could have meant: If asked, do I have to give? In that case m answer would be: I don't know. What's the nature of your relationship with the asker?

If someone asks for information and you refuse to give it and don't face legal consequences, then the asker was entitled to ask, but not to receive. But if someone asks you for information and you refuse to give and face legal consequences for your refusal, say, T for D or payment withholding, then I'd say the asker was entitled to ask and to receive.

Yet another reason to ask clear questions.

I don't think this is a black & white issue. To my way of thinking, the question is not whether the contractor can (or should) refuse the request based on privacy concerns but, instead, how the contractor might respond to the request without creating risk related to privacy concerns.

It can be done easily. Redact employee names and SSNs and addresses, and retain the employee ID number, which should track to the employee pay information on the payroll register. If you have a decently sophisticated system, the employee ID number will track to the data (including pay rate) in the employee Master File. Thus, the employee ID number is the common link that permits audit review without revealing any employee private information such as SSN, home address, etc.

Frontal assaults may work, but then tend to create casualties. Better slip around the flank by giving the Specialist what they want in the manner that protects the company (and the employee).

Pat has apparently checked out of this discussion thread. I'm guessing that he got his answer.

here_2_help said:

I don't think this is a black & white issue. To my way of thinking, the question is not whether the contractor can (or should) refuse the request based on privacy concerns but, instead, how the contractor might respond to the request without creating risk related to privacy concerns.

I don't think the question was "should." The question was obscure, but I think it leaned more toward "can."

help:

Let me ask you two questions: Is an actual pay stub "cost or pricing data" as defined by FAR 2.101?

If so, and presuming that the company is a "true" sole source prospective contractor and not contractually bound to furnish certified cost or pricing data, can the company refuse to submit if the CO asks for it in accordance with FAR 15.403-4?

I will modify my earlier statements regarding construction contract requirements. Contractually required payroll information doesn't cover salaried, non-hourly paid workers that aren't covered by D-B wage rates. 

However, here a contractor or proposed contractor is apparently proposing a cost for negotiations that it maintains is reasonable because that is what it is paying an employee(s).  

Pursuant to FAR 31.201-3 (a) -- Determining Reasonableness and 15.402 (a) and (b), and 15.403-3 concerning requiring data other than cost or pricing data, if the KO needs additional data to determine that this is indeed a current cost for forward pricing or a claimed cost, then I think that the contractor should have to show that it is an actual cost. 

I don't think that it has to be certified cost or pricing data.

I asked a hypothetical, Joel.

If the CO requests certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR, are the stubs cost or pricing data?

Vern Edwards said:

I don't think the question was "should." The question was obscure, but I think it leaned more toward "can."

help:

Let me ask you two questions: Is an actual pay stub "cost or pricing data" as defined by FAR 2.101?

If so, and presuming that the company is a "true" sole source prospective contractor and not contractually bound to furnish certified cost or pricing data, can the company refuse to submit if the CO asks for it in accordance with FAR 15.403-4?

1. No. It is at most evidence in support of cost or pricing data. The fact is what an employee is paid. The pay stub is evidence supporting or refuting that fact. To support my position, I looked at the Instructions for submitting certified cost or pricing data at Table 15-2. With respect to direct labor, the Instructions state "Provide a time-phased (e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc.) breakdown of labor hours, rates, and cost by appropriate category, and furnish bases for estimates." Paystubs are none of those things.

2. No, not to my way of thinking. I don't see "paystubs" on the list of bona fide exceptions found at 52.215-20. But I already opined that paystubs don't meet the definition of cost or pricing data, because they are not cost data or pricing data: they are evidence in support of cost data.

Point of order: Table 15-2 is simply telling an offeror how to package information. The fact that it does not mention pay stubs does not prove your conclusion. However, I agree that cost or pricing data consist of facts and that the stubs are merely evidence of the facts.

So... are the 

here_2_help said:

names and SSNs and addresses

that are on the stubs cost or pricing data?

If so, is are CO and DCAA auditor to have access to the pay stubs when seeking to verify that certified cost or pricing data were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of price agreement?

Vern, no. That stuff does not meet the 2.101 definition. Among other things, names and SSNs and addresses are not things that "prudent buyers and sellers would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly."

Yes, the government has the right of access to verify the cost or pricing data. See 52.215-2(c):

"If the Contractor has been required to submit certified cost or pricing data in connection with any pricing action relating to this contract, the Contracting Officer, or an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer, in order to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and currency of the cost or pricing data, shall have the right to examine and audit all of the Contractor’s records, including computations and projections, related to --

• (1) The proposal for the contract, subcontract, or modification;

  (2) The discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating;

  (3) Pricing of the contract, subcontract, or modification; or

  (4) Performance of the contract, subcontract or modification."

(Emphasis added.)

However, if the contractor is basing the price on actual costs for specific persons, which is factual information, then the facts must be verifiable and the names should be available to match the claimed costs.  SSN and addresses are likely not necessary to verify.

H2H and Vern, if pay stubs are not facts, but merely evidence of a fact, i.e., what a particular employee is actually paid, how would that fact be submitted to the government in order for the contractor to satisfy its obligation under FAR 52.215-20 or 52.215-21 assuming they are in an RFP or contract respectively?

H2H, I am fairly sure you are aware of DCAA's concern with "ghost employees."  Would access to an "employees" supposed SSN and home address be relevant to an inquiry into whether an employee actually exists?

here_2_help said:

Vern, no. That stuff does not meet the 2.101 definition.

I'm not sure that I agree, but I'm not interested in arguing the point since you agree that the government can access that information via audit. I think Joel and Retread have made good points.

Retreadfed said:

H2H and Vern, if pay stubs are not facts, but merely evidence of a fact, i.e., what a particular employee is actually paid, how would that fact be submitted to the government in order for the contractor to satisfy its obligation under FAR 52.215-20 or 52.215-21 assuming they are in an RFP or contract respectively?

How about an Excel spreadsheet?

I would want to see a redacted copy of the factual payroll record, not something newly created. I believe that is possible. 

As for (formerly known as) TINA vs non-TINA, untruthful statements or claims may have consequences (if the government cares enough to pursue) under the laws as applicable to the situation, e.g., False Statements, False Claims, fraud, "TINA", etc. 

EDIT: construction contractors routinely furnish redacted payroll info for hourly employees under their contracts and I have also seen partial info included for salaried employees.

An Excel spreadsheet would be a secondary source of evidence, i.e., evidence of a fact derived from a primary source of evidence of that fact.  In order to corroborate the information in the spreadsheet, I would need information from the source used to create the spreadsheet. 

I'm not sure what is meant by "paystub" in this context.  The way I usually use that term it refers to something that is provided to an employee.  In that case, what the employee receives is not a contractor record.  The government only has contract audit rights in regard to contractor records.  It does not have any contract rights to records of individual employees.  Therefore, I would like for Pat to clarify exactly what is being asked for.

Retread, good luck with getting a clarification. I'm not interested any more, unless the Specialist or KO used that specific term.

Retreadfed said:

H2H and Vern, if pay stubs are not facts, but merely evidence of a fact, i.e., what a particular employee is actually paid, how would that fact be submitted to the government in order for the contractor to satisfy its obligation under FAR 52.215-20 or 52.215-21 assuming they are in an RFP or contract respectively?

H2H, I am fairly sure you are aware of DCAA's concern with "ghost employees."  Would access to an "employees" supposed SSN and home address be relevant to an inquiry into whether an employee actually exists?

1. Paystubs are not facts. I think that's fairly clear. Paystubs are evidence supporting the amount an employee gets paid, or perhaps the quantity of hours that an hourly or non-exempt employee recently worked. But better evidence would be the certified payroll register, hopefully redacted to protect Personally Identifiable Information (PII), as Joel already noted.

2. From time to time DCAA performs a MAAR 6 "Labor Floorcheck" audit that I suppose has, as an ancillary benefit, a confirmation that employees actually exist. Other than that I haven't seen DCAA care about that subject in at least a decade, perhaps two decades. Companies used to have a control that required periodic issuance of paychecks via hand. Paychecks needed to be handed to physically present employees. That control went bye-bye with the advent of direct deposit.

2. If DCAA is concerned that employees on long-term telework assignments need to be confirmed, then of course home addresses are relevant. Home addresses might also be relevant in reviews of travel expense reimbursements and relocation expense reimbursements. It's hard for me to see how any of those purposes would have a nexus to an audit of a contractor's cost proposal, unless the contractor was proposing a home office expense somewhere.

For me, the bottom line here is that a contract specialist who is concerned about reviewing employee paystubs has too much time on their hands and needs to be given more work to fill up the day.

here_2_help said:

Paystubs are not facts. I think that's fairly clear.

It's not clear (proven) to me that pay stubs are not facts. That is just your assertion. Prove it.

Here's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of fact:

Quote

fact (15c) 1. Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality . • Facts include not just tangible things, actual occurrences, and relationships, but also states of mind such as intentions and the holding of opinions. 2. An actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect, consequence, or interpretation . — Also termed historical fact. 3. An evil deed; a crime .

If a fact is something that actually exists, and if a pay stub actually exists, then the pay stub is a fact, is it not? It is an aspect of reality. Is it not?

FAR 2.101 defines cost or pricing data as facts. You appear to take the position that facts are information, but that the documents or other physical records on which the information is recorded are not facts. Thus, the contractor must submit and certify the accuracy, completeness, and currency of information. They need not submit and certify documents and records. Is that your position?

What I find interesting is that you seem to be saying that the contractor need not submit the actual pay stubs, but need submit only a transcription of some kind, with some info redacted. It seems to me that such an approach would increase the risk of inaccuracy in a submission and thus the risk of defective pricing and false claim litigation. Why take such a laborious, risky approach. And why worry about disclosing personal information on pay stubs to the government, which undoubtedly already has or has access to such information in other contexts?

I think what you said about a distinction between pay stubs and facts is interesting. I am not saying that you are wrong or that I disagree. I simply have doubts, and I am saying that you have not proved your point. You have not given the readers here sufficient reason to believe that pay stubs are not facts in the context of TINA. What you said is not true just because you said it. I presume that you have some defective pricing case law in support of that proposition. Can you cite a case in which a board or court held without being overruled that a document or other record of a fact is not itself a fact, is not cost or pricing data for that reason, and thus need not be submitted and certified?

Vern, I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, but is it possible that the statutes and regulations are incorrectly using the term "fact" when the more precise term should be "factual evidence"? From my layperson reading, a Trier of Fact determines the facts of a case based on evidence presented. The facts are conclusions based on evidence, and are not evidence themselves.

If facts exist outside of evidence in support of them, wouldn't they be beliefs instead of facts?

In any case, when I prepare a cost estimate I use as many facts as possible. In order to determine those facts, I rely on documents (evidence). Sometimes I use judgment. When I submit a cost estimate subject to Truthful Cost or Pricing Data requirements, I tell the contracting officer how I developed my costing and price, and I tell them what evidence I relied on and when I used judgment. When DCAA comes in to audit my cost estimate, they ask for evidence to support my assertions--my "facts". They decide whether or not the evidence supports my assertions regarding the "facts". If I told the contracting officer I was using judgment, they will ask for technical assistance to express an opinion regarding the reasonableness of my judgment.

I may be wrong but that's the way it's worked for more than 30 years.

In my view, it would be unfortunate if the Trier of Fact were to henceforth be known as the Trier of Paystubs.

help:

I don't think it's a matter of the statutes and regulations having used the word fact incorrectly.

Let's think this through. The question is whether a pay stub or other payroll record is a fact and is thug cost or pricing data.

Here's how 10 USC § 2306a(h) defines cost or pricing data:

Quote

(h)Definitions.—In this section:

(1)Cost or pricing data.—

The term “cost or pricing data” means all facts that, as of the date of agreement on the price of a contract (or the price of a contract modification), or, if applicable consistent with subsection (e)(1)(B), another date agreed upon between the parties, a prudent buyer or seller would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly. Such term does not include information that is judgmental, but does include the factual information from which a judgment was derived.

Neither the statute nor FAR define fact, but the definition of cost or pricing data in FAR 2.101 says:

Quote

Cost or pricing data are factual, not judgmental; and are verifiable.

I.e., what makes something a fact is that it is true or false. Thus, an estimate or decision is not a fact, but the existence or nonexistence of an estimate or decision is a fact. When you said that you rely on factual evidence when you prepare a cost estimate, someone else would say that you rely on facts, one of them the fact that relevant estimates (judgments) were made in the past.

More generally, a fact is something that is known to exist or to have existed at some time in the past. You've already seen the definition in Black's. Here's how the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines fact:

Quote

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.

By that definition, the payment to Bob Jones is a fact; the statement that Bob Jones was paid $XXX.XX is a fact; and the record of the payment to Bob Jones, say, a pay stub, is a fact.

According to the entry on "facts" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote

What might a fact be? Three popular views about the nature of facts can be distinguished:

A fact is just a true truth-bearer,

A fact is just an obtaining state of affairs,

A fact is just a sui generis [unique] type of entity in which objects exemplify properties or stand in relations.

That sure clears things up.

I did some research into boards of contract appeals decisions and law review articles and found no indication than anyone has argued about the form in which cost or pricing data are submitted--whether facts are information, documents and other records, other things, or all of the foregoing. The usual disagreement over fact is whether specific information was factual in nature or judgmental.

FAR requires "submittal" of cost or pricing data, either actually or by specific identification. The boards and law review articles discuss "disclosure." Submittal and disclosure issues usually involve documents or records of some kind. The instructions in FAR Table 15-2 make many references to documents and records. I can pretty well guarantee that if, during negotiations, a contractor's representative orally communicates a fact accurately, but submits a document that inaccurately communicates information about the same thing, the contractor will be found to have submitted defective data. Whether the defective data will be found to have caused the price to be increased is another matter. 

I think that if a contractor asserts to the CO that Mr. Jones was paid such and such for his work during a specified period of time, the contractor will have made a statement purported to be fact, which constitutes a submission or cost or pricing data. In addition, the making of the statement is a fact. If the statement is true it is not inaccurate or noncurrent. But if the contractor has a payroll record for Mr. Jones during that period and does not submit it, either actually or by specific identification, then the contractor's cost or pricing data have been incomplete, and the contract will have been defectively priced. The contractor can argue that the defective pricing did not cause the contract to be overpriced and that there should be no price reduction, because the contracting officer knew the fact at issue. The contractor should be okay assuming that the contractor can prove that the CO knew the fact at issue. On the other hand, if the payroll record that was not submitted shows that Mr. Jones was paid a lesser amount, then there will be trouble.

Bottom line: I don't think it's useful to debate whether a pay stub is a fact or is evidence of a fact I think that by almost every definition of fact, evidence of a fact is itself a fact. In any case, I haven't found any defective pricing case in which the outcome turned on that issue. The issue has been whether information, however conveyed by whatever medium, is something that is verifiably true or false or merely a matter of judgment.

I agree with Vern.  The key is that a paystub contains factual information, i.e., information that is verifiable.  While the statute and FAR contain the word "data," I learned a long time ago that laws, regulations and contracts mean what the courts say they mean.  In MRS Manufacturing, the Court of Claims said 

Situations wherein accurate, complete, and current information is known to the contractor and not known to the Government can certainly be avoided if such information is physically delivered to the Government and the information's significance to the negotiation process is made known to the Government by the contractor. We do not hold that both of these conditions must always be met before a contractor can be said to have submitted the required information to the Government. We conclude, however, that if a contractor possesses accurate, complete, and current information that is relevant to negotiations [*182]  with the Government, and he neither physically delivers the data to the Government, nor makes the Government aware of the information's significance to the negotiation process, then he has not fulfilled his duty under the Act to furnish such information to the Government.

It is clear from this that the Court was equating "data" with "information."  This seems to have influenced later decisions concerning defective pricing and what is cost or pricing data.  The boards and courts have been consistent in treating documents that contain factual data or information that can impact price negotiations as  cost or pricing data.  See, for example, Texas Instruments, 87-3 BCA 20195.  This is consistent with the purpose of requiring the submission of certified cost or pricing data, i.e., disclosure of all the facts necessary to place the Government in a position equal to the contractor with respect to making judgments on pricing as stated in several defective pricing decisions.

H2H, in regard to ghost employees, see DCAA MRD 13-PPD-012(R)July 18, 2013.  You might find it interesting.

Retreadfed said:

In MRS Manufacturing, the Court of Claims said 

Situations wherein accurate, complete, and current information is known to the contractor and not known to the Government can certainly be avoided if such information is physically delivered to the Government and the information's significance to the negotiation process is made known to the Government by the contractor. We do not hold that both of these conditions must always be met before a contractor can be said to have submitted the required information to the Government. We conclude, however, that if a contractor possesses accurate, complete, and current information that is relevant to negotiations [*182]  with the Government, and he neither physically delivers the data to the Government, nor makes the Government aware of the information's significance to the negotiation process, then he has not fulfilled his duty under the Act to furnish such information to the Government.

We do love to go down these semantic rabbit holes here, don't we.

According to the court's decision, quoted above, facts = information.

What is information?

My entire point is that the contractor has fulfilled its duty when it discloses its facts in accordance with the requirements of FAR Table 15-2, unless the CO requests additional information necessary to support the determination of price reasonableness. If I have told you that Employee Number 1 makes $100,000 in annual salary, that is a factual disclosure, and I have met by disclosure obligation.

Pieces of paper may be facts, but the contractor has flexibility to disclose those facts in the manner it chooses, consistent with FAR requirements. Once facts/information have been disclosed, any further inquiries about those facts fall into "verification" (at least in my mind). The verification activity would appear to have the purpose of confirming or refuting the contractor's assertion regarding the veracity of the facts/information it disclosed. I think it used to be called "fact finding" but I'm not sure if that term is used anymore.

In any case, if you want paystubs to be certified cost or pricing data, then fine with me. I've already agreed that the government has audit rights with respect to certified cost or pricing data. Please do not take the next step of stating that the contractor has violated its disclosure requirements if it has failed to submit paystubs as part of its disclosure package.

Retreadfed said:

H2H, in regard to ghost employees, see DCAA MRD 13-PPD-012(R)July 18, 2013.  You might find it interesting.

Retreadfed,

Thanks for the reference. I'm familar with that MRD. It was required because DCAA didn't perform its MAAR audits consistently when it stopped performing its audits of contractor proposals to establish final billing rates. It's tough to interview employees who left the company (or passed away) years ago.

As you probably know, GAGAS 6.04b requires audit conclusions to be based on adequate ("sufficient and appropriate") evidence, and there were some concerns that maybe DCAA was taking so long to perform its audits, once it got around to performing them, that the information it was relying on was no longer adequate. (See DoD OIG audit report number D-2011-6-011, Sept. 21, 2011.) Thus, to address the concerns raised by the IG, the MRD was issued to give auditors additional procedures that would help to make the old information more adequate. To my knowledge, nobody has yet opined on whether or not the additional procedures correct the basic problem documented by the IG. (I should note that it was a DCAA auditor that first raised the issue by calling the IG Hotline.)

To your point, yes. I see that "existence" is still an audit test. In my recent experience, though, the "existence" part of the audit is of lesser importance than the "interview" part of the audit.

here_2_help said:

In any case, if you want paystubs to be certified cost or pricing data, then fine with me. I've already agreed that the government has audit rights with respect to certified cost or pricing data. Please do not take the next step of stating that the contractor has violated its disclosure requirements if it has failed to submit paystubs as part of its disclosure package.

From Table 15-2, Note 1:

Quote

The requirement for submission of certified cost or pricing data is met when all accurate certified cost or pricing data reasonably available to the offeror have been submitted, either actually or by specific identification, to the Contracting Officer or an authorized representative.

"All." Some cost or pricing data are likely to be duplicative, that is, contain the same info. But it doesn't matter. "All." Now, once the CO has been made aware of some information, failure to disclose duplicative cost or pricing data, while defective pricing, shouldn't have caused the price to be increased. Thus, you have defective pricing, which is the failure to submit accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data. But the defective pricing will be without effect, and there should be no price reduction.

here_2_help said:

Pieces of paper may be facts, but the contractor has flexibility to disclose those facts in the manner it chooses, consistent with FAR requirements. Once facts/information have been disclosed, any further inquiries about those facts fall into "verification" (at least in my mind). The verification activity would appear to have the purpose of confirming or refuting the contractor's assertion regarding the veracity of the facts/information it disclosed. I think it used to be called "fact finding" but I'm not sure if that term is used anymore.

That's not good thinking if it means that the contractor gets to pick and choose what is cost or pricing data. "ALL." The submission of certified cost or pricing data must be accurate, complete, and current. You start playing pick and choose, distinguishing between fact and evidence, and distinguishing between disclosing and verifying, and and sooner or later you're going to make a mistake and omit something you shouldn't have. Then, years later, after the original players have moved on, retired, or died, you might have to pay big bucks to an attorney. All it takes is for DCAA to conduct a defective pricing audit and discover something that they think was not previously disclosed. All of a sudden a routine process gets intense, and expensive. See DCAAM 14-116.3:

Quote

Once the auditor has established the baseline for audit, the next step is to compare the certified cost or pricing data in the audit baseline to all accurate, complete, and current cost or pricing data reasonably available to the contractor prior to agreement on price, or another date agreed upon between the parties. Differences found identify potential defective pricing.

Oh boy. Here we go. It might come to nothing, but then again...

These rules are not altogether logical and clear. That's why courts and boards have to fill in gaps. Most people preparing proposals are not experts in these rules, and they shouldn't be taught or advised to parse the rules to do things like distinguish between facts and evidence. It's fun to discuss that sort of thing at Wifcon, but in real life, if you have to provide certified cost or pricing data keep it simple, just give them "all" of it. The stuff you're sure about and the stuff you're not. 

The original question was answered long ago, way back at the very first response.