Can AI monitor funded value burn across our contracts?

On an incrementally funded cost-reimbursement contract, the government allots money in pieces. FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds (APR 1984), says the government "is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted," and that the contractor is not obligated to keep working past that amount until the contracting officer gives written notice of an increase. The clause turns "how far has each project burned against funded value" into a question with a deadline attached.

Costpoint holds the funded value and already measures against it

The data is not the problem. Deltek's Costpoint 8.2 help describes the Manage Modifications screen as the place "to enter all modifications for signed and funded value, as well as period of performance," with the initial values entered against Modification 0000 and later funding modifications accumulating on top. The Manage Total Ceilings screen can place a ceiling "on the contract value or the funded value of the project," on cost, fee or both, applied when Costpoint computes revenue or calculates bills; if the same ceiling is entered for both values, it uses the lower of the two.

Costpoint also shows the ratio. The Project Overview tab of the Command Center, in Deltek's 8.2 help, reports a "% Revenue to Funding" figure for each project, highlights projects between 60 and 75 percent in yellow, and tells users to "monitor project progress and notify customers when the project is approaching a 75% milestone." The 8.1 help describes a Projects Over x% Funding dashpart that lists projects whose revenue is approaching a threshold you set, calculated as revenue divided by funding. On any given day, the screen shows which projects sit above a line.

Sample figures. Today the project has spent 64 percent of the funds allotted, under the 75 percent line, so a ratio-only view shows nothing. Burn has run about 1.5 points a week for twelve weeks, which puts it at about 76.9 percent in 60 days. That is the test the clause sets, and it says the written notice is due now, not in the seven weeks it takes the ratio itself to cross the line. At the same rate the allotment is spent in about 24 weeks.

The clause asks a different question than the screen answers

Paragraph (c) of FAR 52.232-22 requires written notice to the contracting officer whenever the contractor has reason to believe that the costs it expects to incur in the next 60 days, added to all costs previously incurred, "will exceed 75 percent of" the total amount so far allotted to the contract (or the amount for the current Schedule period, if one is specified), and the notice states the estimated additional funds needed. Paragraph (d) adds a second notice 60 days before the end of the Schedule period: the additional funds the contractor estimates it will need, and when. Paragraph (f) is the one with teeth: no reimbursement above the allotment, and no duty to continue past it until the contracting officer says in writing that the allotment has been increased.

Three things in that text are not described on the Costpoint funding screens Deltek documents. First, it is a forecast, not a reading: costs incurred plus costs expected in the next 60 days. A project under the line today is a notice case today if its burn rate carries it over within two months. Second, it names costs, while the Costpoint tab names revenue; revenue on a cost-type project is built from cost, but it is not the same figure, and whichever one the alert runs on should be a choice the controller writes down. Third, it applies to each incrementally funded contract on its own terms: its own allotment, its own Schedule period, its own paragraph (d) date. "Across our contracts" means running the same test on every one, every week, and reading the answer in one list. The inputs are scattered: posted costs in the project ledger, coming costs in unposted timesheets, unreceived subcontractor invoices and the program manager's forecast, funding and period dates in the modifications. Gathering all of that for every project, every week, is the work.

What an assistant can do every week

This is read-only work with a fixed shape. Each week, for every incrementally funded project, the assistant reads the funded value and Schedule dates from the modifications, the posted costs from the project ledger, the labor in approved but unposted timesheets, and the open subcontractor commitments, wherever the firm keeps them, computes a burn rate over a window the controller chooses and the 60-day projection, and then does four things.

It lists the projects where the projection passes 75 percent of the allotment, and separately the projects whose Schedule period ends within 60 days, since those owe the paragraph (d) notice regardless of burn. It explains each flag in plain words: a new subcontractor started, labor on one task jumped, an expected funding modification has not been signed. And it drafts the notice itself, with the estimated additional funds and the date they are needed, and with the modification number, the ledger period and the timesheet cutoff written under every figure. Our principle for this is plain: "Every answer shows where it came from. No black boxes." The same read gives the CFO the portfolio roll-up: total funded, total spent, the projects that will need a modification next quarter, and the modifications promised but unsigned.

What it must not do

It does not send the notice. The clause puts the duty on the contractor, in writing, and only a written notice from the contracting officer changes the amount allotted. The draft goes to the contracts manager, who checks the figures against the modification and the ledger and signs. What the firm does if funds are not added is also that person's decision, not a model's recommendation.

It does not change a funded value. Funded value is entered on Manage Modifications when a funding modification arrives, and that record is Costpoint's. DFARS 252.242-7006 lists, among the 18 criteria of an acceptable accounting system, the cost information required by the Limitation of Cost, Limitation of Funds and Allowable Cost and Payment clauses; that information comes from the accounting system, and a read-only assistant leaves it alone. Burn against funded value was one of the two tasks at the top of the list in What should a government contractor automate with AI first? for this reason.

It does not show a program manager another program's numbers. Costpoint has per-user cost and price suppression and organization security, and its help notes that suppression does not reach every screen, so test the funding screens as real users. The assistant has to ask as the person asking, with that person's rights, as set out in How do you keep an AI assistant from showing employees Costpoint data they can't see? And it keeps its work: FAR 52.215-2 defines records to include "other data, regardless of type" and "in the form of computer data," so the weekly projection behind a notice, or behind the decision not to send one, is retained like a workpaper.

Check what Deltek ships before you build

Start with the Command Center's Project Overview tab and the funding dashpart: an in-system ratio with a yellow band is a good first alert and is already in the product you run. Deltek's Costpoint 2026.2 release notes also describe an Intelligent Contract Assistant in Ask Dela that lets users mark contracts "At Risk." If you run Costpoint outside GovCon Cloud Moderate with Dela enabled, look at those first. Whether any Dela feature is available in GCCM is not something Deltek's public documents settle; the two that disagree are quoted in Is Deltek's Dela available in GovCon Cloud Moderate, and what are GCCM customers' options for AI? What stays outside the product is the clause's own arithmetic and the paper around it: the 60-day projection, the unposted labor and unreceived invoices, the program manager's forecast, the portfolio roll-up, and the letter a person will sign. That is cross-system work, done without touching a record in Costpoint.

What the first month should look like

Pick five incrementally funded projects. Agree in writing whether the test runs on costs or on revenue, what window sets the burn rate, and which unposted items count. Each week, have the assistant produce the list, the 60-day projection, the paragraph (d) dates, the explanation of each flag and one draft notice, with sources under every figure, and have the controller check every number against Manage Modifications and the project status report. If after four weeks the controller trusts the list enough to stop building it in a spreadsheet, extend it to every incrementally funded project. If not, the problem is in the inputs or the window, and a month is a cheap way to find out which. The point is to learn on a Tuesday what the clause would otherwise teach you weeks later, on every contract at once.

Common questions

Doesn't Costpoint already warn us at 75 percent of funding?

It shows the ratio. Deltek's Costpoint 8.2 help describes a Project Overview tab in the Command Center that reports each project's percentage of revenue to funded value, highlights projects between 60 and 75 percent in yellow, and says to use it to notify customers when a project is approaching a 75 percent milestone; the 8.1 help describes a Projects Over x% Funding dashpart with a threshold you set. Both measure where the project stands today. FAR 52.232-22 asks where costs will stand in 60 days, which needs a burn rate and a forecast those pages do not describe.

Is the 75 percent notice measured against contract value or funded value?

Funded value, on an incrementally funded contract. FAR 52.232-22(c) ties the notice to 75 percent of the total amount so far allotted to the contract by the government, or the amount for the current Schedule period, not the ceiling. Costpoint keeps the two apart: Manage Modifications records both the signed value and the funded value, and Manage Total Ceilings can place a ceiling on either one, using the lower of the two if both are set.

Who sends the Limitation of Funds notice if an assistant drafts it?

A person at the contractor, in writing, to the contracting officer. The clause puts the duty on the contractor, and the notice states the estimated additional funds needed. An assistant can produce the projection, the reasons and a draft letter with the figures and their sources attached; the contracts manager checks it against the funding modification and signs. Only a written notice from the contracting officer changes the amount allotted, so the draft is the start of a conversation, not the end of one.

Does an AI burn report change what DCAA expects of our accounting system?

Our reading is that it does not, if the assistant only reads. DFARS 252.242-7006 lists, among its 18 accounting system criteria, the cost information required by the Limitation of Cost, Limitation of Funds and Allowable Cost and Payment clauses. That information still comes from the books. A read-only assistant adds a projection on top of it and posts nothing. Keep the weekly analyses, because FAR 52.215-2 defines records to include computer data, and the analysis behind a notice is the kind of thing an auditor may ask to see.