No, I am not saying that the government specified any amount of prime contract funds to be used only for a particular subcontract. Subcontract funded amount was intended to mean total amount allotted in FAR 52.232-22. My apologies there. I do agree with you that prime contractors should budget their government funding to cover internal work, management reserve and subcontracts. I spent over 30 years in major subcontracts with two of the top 3 prime contractors. The budget amount (total amount allotted) for each cost reimbursement subcontract was included in the subcontract to make it contractually enforceable. Cost reimbursement subcontracts had a total amount allotted line item. It was incrementally changed from time to time as budget increased during the POP. FAR 52.232-22 was included with alterations to ensure that the prime is not obligated to reimburse a subcontractor for costs incurred and fee in excess of the total amount allotted in subcontract. This ensures that at the prime level, government funding is never unexpectedly exceeded due to subcontracts exceeding the internal budget. Perhaps the prime contractor here did not follow this practice. In my opinion, that is a questionable "non-practice." It may call into question the prime's proper financial management of its subcontracts (enforcing and managing the budget) and potentially could be at odds with approved accounting or financial system requirements. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a potential CPSR concern as well.