FAR 44.202—Contracting officer’s evaluation.

Responsibilities.

FAR 44.202-1 assigns responsibility for reviewing and approving certain subcontract actions, with a focus on who has authority to grant consent to subcontract and how that authority is exercised. It addresses the role of the cognizant administrative contracting officer (ACO), the circumstances in which the contracting officer keeps or withholds that responsibility, and the need for the contract administration office to assist when asked. It also explains what the contracting officer must evaluate when consent is required: the contractor’s notification and supporting data, the risks involved in the proposed subcontract, and whether the action is consistent with current policy and sound business judgment. Finally, it clarifies that simply naming a subcontractor during negotiations does not automatically satisfy the advance notification or consent requirements of FAR 52.244-2, while allowing the contracting officer to recognize specific subcontracts as already evaluated if those requirements were effectively met during negotiations. In practice, this section is about making sure subcontract consent decisions are made by the right official, based on a meaningful review, and documented clearly so there is no confusion later about whether consent was required or already satisfied.

Considerations.

FAR 44.202-2 tells the contracting officer what to look at before giving consent to a subcontract when consent is required. It covers review of the request and supporting data, consistency with the contractor’s approved make-or-buy program, availability of Government sources for special test equipment, equipment, or real property, technical justification for the selected supplies/equipment/services, compliance with small business subcontracting requirements and mandatory sources for nonprofit agencies, adequacy of competition or justification for noncompetitive pricing, treatment of alternate proposals, the contractor’s basis for selecting and determining subcontractor responsibility, price and cost analysis and required cost or pricing data, appropriateness of subcontract type, consideration for use of Government-furnished equipment and real property, translation of prime contract technical requirements into subcontract requirements, compliance with applicable cost accounting standards, and whether the proposed subcontractor is excluded in SAM. The section exists to help the Government avoid approving poorly planned, overpriced, noncompliant, or risky subcontracts that could affect cost, performance, socioeconomic goals, and contract administration. In practice, it requires the contracting officer to do more than a paperwork check: the officer must evaluate whether the subcontract decision is reasonable, compliant, and supported by the record. The rule also signals that some situations require especially careful scrutiny, such as weak purchasing systems, close affiliations between the prime and subcontractor, noncompetitive awards, questionable prices, and cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour subcontracts. For contractors, this means the consent package must be complete, well-documented, and defensible; for contracting officers, it means the review should focus on risk, compliance, and value to the Government.