FAR 52.230-6(l)(3) CAR reporting applicability to lower tiers subcontractors

[Z-Mil]

Thoughts on whether the reporting requirements under 52.230-6 apply to 2nd tier subcontractors?   

The opening statement appears to limit the application of the clause to the contractor:  For the purpose of administering the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements under this contract, the Contractor shall take the steps outlined in paragraphs (b) through (i) and (k) through (n) of this clause:

Additionally, the DAU Clause and Provision Martix does not show that this is a flowable clause.   DCMA is stating that "all subs need to include the substance of the clause in their lower tier subcontracts even though it is not a flowable clause".  Would love to hear your thoughts on this position.

 

[here_2_help]

CAS clauses flow-down by the express direction of the language. In 52.230-6(l), the clause states:

 

Quote

l) For all subcontracts subject to the clauses at FAR 52.230-2, 52.230-3, 52.230-4, or 52.230-5-

(1) So state in the body of the subcontract, in the letter of award, or in both (do not use self-deleting clauses);

(2) Include the substance of this clause in all negotiated subcontracts; and

(3) Within 30 days after award of the subcontract, submit the following information to the Contractor’s CFAO:

(i) Subcontractor’s name and subcontract number.

(ii) Dollar amount and date of award.

(iii) Name of Contractor making the award.

 

Thus, the prime flows-down to 1st tier negotiated subcontracts that are CAS-covered. The clause is now in the 1st tier subcontract. Should that subcontractor award a negotiated CAS-covered subcontract to the next tier, the clause--by its express language--must flow. Now the 2nd tier subcontract has that clause and the 2nd tier subcontractor must comply.

[Z-Mil]

Thank you here_2_help, so the term 'contractor' and subcontractor' as used in this provision have no tie to terms as defined in FAR 44.101?

[Retreadfed]

Z-Mil, note that FAR 44.101 starts "As used in this part."  Thus, the definitions that follow only apply to Part 44.  They do not apply to other FAR parts.

[Z-Mil]

Agree as that was what Vern taught me as well.  There is no definition for 'contractor' in 2.101 nor in 52.230.

[Retreadfed]

2 hours ago, Z-Mil said:

There is no definition for 'contractor' in 2.101 nor in 52.230.

I don't think you can go wrong by relying on the definition of "contractor" found in the CDA (41 U.S.C. 7101) that contractor "means a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government."

[Don Mansfield]

9 hours ago, Z-Mil said:

Thoughts on whether the reporting requirements under 52.230-6 apply to 2nd tier subcontractors?   

The opening statement appears to limit the application of the clause to the contractor:  For the purpose of administering the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements under this contract, the Contractor shall take the steps outlined in paragraphs (b) through (i) and (k) through (n) of this clause:

Additionally, the DAU Clause and Provision Martix does not show that this is a flowable clause.   DCMA is stating that "all subs need to include the substance of the clause in their lower tier subcontracts even though it is not a flowable clause".  Would love to hear your thoughts on this position.

 

I don't know why that would not be coded as a flow-down clause in the matrix--it obviously is.

6 hours ago, Z-Mil said:

There is no definition for 'contractor' in 2.101 nor in 52.230.

So what? In a contract between the prime and the sub, wouldn't the sub be the contractor?

In any case, the "substance" of the clause needs to flowed down--it doesn't need to be verbatim.