JFQ

Thank you for the responses. They were helpful in realizing the question was irrelevant since its not a FAR concern, it is between the parties.

I am reviewing some older subcontracts from a few years ago (before my time) and I found one subcontract where the entire contract value was for less than $20K. However, the Prime included in the FAR flowdowns that for all contracts under $100K, 52.242-3, Penalties for Unallowable Costs would apply. FAR 42.709-6 says to use 52.242-3 in all solicitations and contracts over $700K. Even assuming the previous amounts of $650K, $500K, etc. were in effect, clearly a contract of less than $20K would not apply. My question is, in a situation like this where 1) the subcontract's requirement description was incorrect by stating this clause applied to contracts under $100K and 2) where the clause would obviously be inapplicable, does 52.242-3 still apply since it was included in the contract and technically falls under the incorrect terms listed in the contract? Is there a "reverse Christian Doctrine" that does not allow for incorrectly included FAR clauses where they should be inapplicable? or are the included clauses mandatory since they are a part of the contract? Thanks,

I am trying to determine whether or not a CPARS evaluation can be shared by a contractor. Specifically, if the ratings and reviews were great, is there any prohibition of sharing those ratings and reviews with a prime or agency prior to the reviews being posted on PPIRS? Many thanks

Thanks Loul, That does make more sense. My confusion was that they cited to 52.232-22 "Limitation of Funds" but then said under that clause, the total amount available and allocated is $500K which is estimated to cover the cost through the Period of Performance. Looking up FAR 32.706, it states that 52.232-22 is required to be put in for solicitations and contracts if an incrementally funded cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. So it seems you are right that it is incrementally funded. It is just confusing to me that they would use language saying the $500K is sufficient to cover cost through the end of the POP and there is no mention of a 70 or 75% notification requirement. Thanks again.

We received a contract with a "Limitation of Funds" clause stating that the max amount allowable on the contract for all of the CLINS is $500K. However the contract, which is a CPFF contract is for almost twice the amount and the fee itself is much less than the difference. Can anyone please help explain how 52.232-22 works? does it mean $500K from one source? I would appreciate any guidance. Thank you