Overview
This section outlines the responsibilities and specific evaluation criteria for a Contracting Officer (CO) or Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) when reviewing a prime contractor's request for consent to subcontract. It ensures that subcontracts are technically sound, competitively priced, and compliant with federal policy and risk management standards.
Key Rules
- Responsibility for Consent: The Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) typically handles subcontract consent unless the CO explicitly retains this authority or withholds it from delegation.
- Explicit Consent Required: Identifying a subcontractor during contract negotiations does not constitute automatic consent; the CO must specifically identify approved subcontracts in paragraph (j) of FAR clause 52.244-2.
- Mandatory Review Criteria: The CO must evaluate at least 13 specific factors, including:
- Consistency with the contractor’s make-or-buy program.
- Compliance with Small Business subcontracting plans and AbilityOne requirements.
- Adequacy of price competition or justification for its absence.
- Performance of cost or price analysis and verification of certified cost or pricing data.
- Subcontractor responsibility and eligibility (checking SAM exclusions).
- Enhanced Scrutiny: "Particularly careful" review is required if the prime has an inadequate purchasing system, if there are ownership affiliations between the prime and sub, or if the subcontract is a high-risk type (Cost-Reimbursement, Time-and-Materials, or Labor-Hour).
Practical Implications
- Documentation is Critical: Prime contractors must maintain comprehensive "consent packages" that mirror the CO’s checklist, including technical justifications and price analyses, to avoid delays in subcontract approval.
- No Assumptions on Proposals: Primes cannot assume a subcontractor is approved just because they were named in a winning proposal; they must ensure the CO formally updates the contract via the 52.244-2 clause to mitigate the risk of unallowable costs.