Best Practices in Drafting U.S. Government Subcontract Terms and Conditions

15 September 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Federal government subcontracts are a hybrid between commercial contracts governed by state law (such as, for the sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code) and government contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and FAR agency supplemental clauses. A “subcontract” is broadly defined in FAR 44.101 as any contract “entered into by a subcontractor to furnish supplies or services for performance of a prime contract or subcontract. It includes but is not limited to purchase orders, and changes and modifications to purchase orders.” 

As a higher-tiered contractor, when drafting subcontracts or purchase order terms and conditions, it is important to understand which FAR and FAR agency supplemental clauses must be flowed down to the subcontractor, and which ones do not apply based on the type of subcontract awarded or the scope of work to be performed by the subcontractor. For example, some clauses must be flowed down by law (e.g., FAR clause 52.222-26, “Equal Opportunity”) while others a higher-tiered contractor should include in its subcontracts for business reasons to protect the higher-tiered contractor’s interests (e.g., FAR clause 52.249-2, “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price)”). Additionally, some clauses only apply to prime contractors and therefore should not be included in subcontracts (e.g., FAR clause 52.233-1, “Disputes”). Further, the higher-tiered contractor must ensure that the commercial terms in the subcontract relating to issues such as payment, warranty, indemnity, etc. are consistent with the requirements that the higher-tiered contractor has accepted in its contract with the U.S. Government or other customer.

As a subcontractor, it is important to understand which clauses can be negotiated and which clauses the higher-tiered contractor is required by law to include in the subcontract. The subcontractor needs to identify and negotiate out of the subcontract those clauses that are not mandatory flowdowns, do not cover a higher-tiered contractor’s legitimate risk, are overly burdensome to the subcontractor, or are just unfair. Also, there are some clauses a subcontractor will likely need to accept to cover the higher-tiered contractor’s legitimate business risks, such as termination and stop-work order clauses. Note that the subcontractor can limit the application of such FAR clauses by insisting that the higher-tiered contractor can only take the unilateral actions of terminating for convenience the contract or issuing a stop-work order when such actions are directed by the government. Otherwise, such actions need to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 

On October 1, 2014, in Livonia, Mich., Foley & Lardner LLP will be hosting a complimentary presentation that will identify best practices for drafting federal government subcontract terms and conditions to reduce risk and potential liability exposure from the perspectives of the higher-tiered contractor and the subcontractor. The presentation will focus on key concepts such as changes, termination, indemnification, and warranty clauses, and suggest innovative techniques for contractors to help limit liability and mitigate against potential losses when doing business with the federal government. Please visit our website for more information about this complimentary seminar and to register. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.