How do defense contractors handle AP automation?

Key takeaways

• Defense contractor AP automation must segregate allowable from unallowable costs at the point of invoice entry, not at month-end, to comply with FAR and DFARS requirements.
• Vergo proposes the coding by inference from your own accounting structure and history—no rule library to build, no keyword lists to maintain, and new vendors are coded on first sight.
• Invoices must be traceable to specific contracts, cost elements, and accounting periods with documentation sufficient for DCAA examination.
• Construction-based defense contractors face dual requirements: job costing with cost codes and retention tracking alongside FAR Part 31 cost principles and incurred cost submissions.
• Effective systems split shared resource invoices across indirect cost pools—fringe, overhead, and G&A—according to pre-approved allocation methodologies.
• Automation prevents common failure points including unallowable costs billed to the government, cost pool misallocations, missing documentation, and payment delays from manual re-coding.

What makes defense contractor AP automation different

AP automation for defense contractors goes well beyond matching purchase orders to invoices. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplement, the DFARS, impose strict requirements on how costs are captured, classified, and reported. Every invoice processed must be traceable to a specific contract, cost element, and accounting period that can withstand a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) examination. The core challenge is cost segregation: contractors must continuously separate allowable costs—those billable to the government—from unallowable costs such as entertainment, certain marketing expenses, and interest charges. This segregation cannot happen at month-end; it must occur at the point of invoice entry. Systems that lack this logic force accounting teams to manually reclassify costs, creating both delay and audit risk. Vergo automates this segregation at invoice entry, proposing coding by inference from your accounting structure and flagging allowability issues before approval.

Why indirect cost pool structures complicate invoice processing

Most defense contractors maintain separate pools for fringe benefits, overhead, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses, each with its own allocation base. An invoice for a shared resource—a piece of equipment used across multiple contracts, for example—must be split and coded to the correct pool before it can be paid or accrued. This means a single transaction may require multiple cost classifications: one portion to direct contract costs, another to an equipment overhead pool, and possibly a third to an unallowable account if any line items violate FAR Part 31 cost principles. When these splits are handled manually, the risk of misallocation increases significantly, distorting indirect rates and potentially skewing contract pricing in ways that surface months later during rate reconciliation or DCAA audit.

Why construction-based defense contractors face compounding challenges

Construction firms performing work on military installations, base realignment projects, or government facilities must satisfy both construction accounting requirements (job costing, cost codes, retention tracking) and government contracting requirements (FAR Part 31 cost principles, DCAA-compliant timekeeping, and incurred cost submissions). For a controller at a defense construction firm, a single subcontractor invoice might need to be matched against a subcontract agreement and any modifications, coded to a specific CLIN (Contract Line Item Number) and WBS element, segregated between direct costs and indirect overhead pools, checked against FAR Part 31 allowability before approval routing, and archived with supporting documentation accessible for DCAA floor checks. Common failure points include unallowable costs billed to the government, cost pool misallocations that distort indirect rates, missing documentation that forces costly reconstruction during audits, and delayed payments caused by manual re-coding that slows approval workflows.

A practical example: allowability classification at invoice entry

Before implementing proper process controls, a mechanical subcontractor submits an invoice on a Navy facility renovation contract. The AP clerk codes the full amount to job cost without identifying that $4,200 relates to a project kickoff dinner—an unallowable expense under FAR 31.205-14. The amount flows into the incurred cost submission, triggering a DCAA finding and a contract adjustment six months later. After implementing a DCAA-compliant AP workflow, the same invoice enters a system that prompts the reviewer to classify each line item against a pre-configured allowability matrix. The entertainment charge is flagged automatically, routed to a holding account, and excluded from billings. The audit trail documents who reviewed it and when, providing the documentation necessary to support the classification during examination.

A practical example: indirect cost pool allocation

An equipment invoice covers a crane used across three active government contracts. Without automation, the AP clerk must manually calculate the allocation across contracts and pools, create journal entries to distribute the cost, and document the methodology for rate submission purposes. With proper AP automation, the system splits the cost according to the firm's pre-approved allocation methodology, posting to each contract's direct cost and the equipment overhead pool simultaneously. No manual journal entry is required, and the allocation is documented automatically with a traceable audit trail showing the methodology applied, the contracts affected, and the amounts distributed to each cost pool.

How Vergo handles this

Vergo automates coding and approval workflows for defense contractors managing complex cost structures. Vergo proposes the coding by inference from your own accounting structure and history—no rule library to build, no keyword lists to maintain, and new vendors are coded on first sight. Every coding shows why it was chosen, so a reviewer confirms in seconds instead of re-coding by hand. Approval workflows are optional and fit how you already control spend: route by GL account, by amount, or by project—or skip approval flows entirely and let policy flags catch only what breaks a rule. Transactions are ready to code the moment they happen—no waiting for clearing—and once they clear, they sync into your accounting or ERP software. Card spend, employee reimbursements, and AP invoices run through one coding model—same coding, same review, one reconciliation—and payment stays on the rails you already use. Vergo integrates with every ERP and accounting software.

Related questions

• How do general contractors manage hundreds of vendor invoices per month?
• What is the cost of processing a single invoice manually in construction?
• How do I reduce the risk of vendor fraud in construction accounts payable?
• Best AP automation software for construction companies using Viewpoint Spectrum