Program AI cost is now a FAR / DFARS line item.
Tokto attributes every prompt, completion, and model dollar to a program, a contract, a CLIN, a function, and a model, so the CFO can defend AI spend against the program office, DCAA, and the prime.
DCAA opens an indirect-cost audit. AI spend allocations to programs cannot be reconciled to actual model usage. The unallowable-cost exposure is material. The board wants a Q&A in three weeks.
- Every prompt and model dollar attributed to a program, a contract, a CLIN, a function, and a model.
- Smart routing to the cheapest capable model for engineering versus proposal versus admin. Teams report 30 to 50 percent cost reduction.
- Budgets by program, by contract, by function, with real-time alerts and auto-disable on overrun.
- Defensible AI cost reporting for DCAA, the prime, the audit committee, and the insurer.
- DCAA finds unallowable AI cost on a program. Recovery and penalty exposure.
- AI spend came in 15x over forecast. The next bid pricing is hostile to the company.
- A vendor partner passes through AI cost at markup. The audit committee asks why.
- The prime asks for AI cost evidence at award. The CFO produces a spreadsheet, not a record. The contract goes to a competitor.
Tokto sits at the financial control plane of AI in the program. Every co-pilot prompt, every proposal model, every supplier-shared AI call carries a program code, a contract, a CLIN, a function, and a model. The CFO knows what AI cost the lead program last quarter, what it cost the bid, and what it cost the supplier who passes it through at markup.
When DCAA asks for indirect-cost detail by program, when the prime asks for AI cost evidence at award, when the audit committee asks how AI cost maps to AI risk, the answer is one report against the system of record. The CFO defends AI spend the way every other line item is defended.