(a) An agreement on pre-contract costs (see also FAR 31.205-32) may be used if, in general, the DCAA Contract Audit Manual (6-710) makes it clear that “the statutory auditor complies with the pre-agreements duly executed for the fiscal year for setting final rates.” However, the CAM notes that “if the statutory auditor finds that a prior agreement is not in the best interests of the government, he will follow the established procedures for recommending in writing to the contractual agent to withdraw the prior agreement.” We have some experience with cancelled pre-contract contracts and, you say, resignation leaves a very bad taste in the contractor`s mouth. We believe that the revocation of an advance agreement, after the costs incurred, is very similar to that of the treaty. Until someone can explain how a “price” that is not cost, it must be admitted, in one of the categories in FAR 52.216-7, paragraph (, reimbursement of fees, we will disagree. The objective of a prior agreement is the proactive agreement on the treatment of certain costs, so that they are no longer admitted at a later date or are the subject of a dispute between the contractor and the client. The DCAA believes that it plays a role in negotiating and implementing a pre-agreement, at least in some areas. One of these areas is compliance with the unique compensation requirements for contractors. Without going into too much detail, DCMA and the contractor can reach a preliminary agreement on the use of “mixed tariffs” in order to meet the countless legal limits on executive compensation. DCMA and DCAA appear to have agreed that “before a prior agreement is signed or a methodology is adopted” (in terms of mixed rates), “the ACO … request that the DCAA review the calculation of the salary cap and participate in preliminary negotiations and/or subsequent negotiations.” (See MRD 16-PSP-005, from 19.02.2016.) Therefore, when a contractor proposes an advance agreement to deal with the use of mixed rates to meet executive pay caps, not only must all stages of the DCMA process described above be followed, but your sympathetic local DCAA reviewer will also be part of the process. The first problem – as we have already suggested – is that DCMA does not give many independent discretionary sideways to its contract agents today. For example, depending on the scope and/or estimated value of the contracts covered by a proposal for a prior agreement, this agreement may be reviewed by two separate review committees (one at the divisional level and the other at DCMA headquarters). If the annual cost of the contracts covered by the agreement is estimated to be less than $25 million, then the CO can execute them.