Clauses · FAR · Quality and inspection
FAR 52.246-8 Inspection of Research and Development-Cost-Reimbursement
Does the regulation require it to flow down?
No
No insertion mandate. Primes mirror it into cost-type R&D subcontracts so the deemed-acceptance clock, the 6-month correction right and the fee-reduction remedy reach the party doing the development. Worth reading closely: (d) here omits the phrase 'at no increase in contract price' that appears in (c) of the fixed-price sibling 52.246-7 — on a cost-type contract the cost of supporting the inspection is an allowable cost, not a freebie. Lockheed's ValleyTech flow-down (SMD036 Rev. 9, NGI) shows the standard prime edit: the clause applies 'if Seller has a cost reimbursement purchase order/subcontract that is for research and development' and 'Government' means 'Lockheed Martin' — which moves the 90-day deemed-acceptance clock and the no-cost correction right to the prime.
A clause can reach your subcontract without a mandate. Once it is in your document, it is a contract term all the same. The missing mandate is a fact about the regulation. It is not a ruling on your order.
Checked against acquisition.gov on 2026-08-05 · edition MAY 2001 (Basic; Alt I APR 1984) · base v0.9.3 Read the text ↗
What it makes you produce
2 items for your checklist, slowest first.
A program you have to be running
You are either running it or you are not, and what the prime asks for is the date it started.
An inspection system acceptable to the Government, covering the development work under the contract
FAR 52.246-8(b)
Something you write
Days to weeks, and nobody outside your company has to agree to it.
Complete records of all inspection work performed, available to the Government during performance and for as long afterwards as the contract requires
FAR 52.246-8(b)
When it is used
FAR 46.308: research and development contracts where (a) the primary objective is delivery of end items other than designs, drawings, or reports and (b) a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated — unless use of the clause is impractical, in which case 46.309 sends the CO to 52.246-9. NO dollar threshold: unlike the fixed-price siblings, 46.308 has no SAT gate. Alt I when the contract is contemplated on a no-fee basis. This clause and 52.246-3 are the only two the FAR lets carry a warranty in a cost-reimbursement contract (46.705(a)) — the (f) correction period IS that warranty.
Read closely
Two dates belong in the calendar. Under (e) work is deemed accepted 90 days after delivery unless it is accepted earlier or the contract says otherwise. Under (f) correction or replacement can be required until six months after acceptance of all the end items, reimbursed as cost but with no additional fee, and tendering corrected work means disclosing the earlier correction requirement. (h)(2) is the paragraph to reread: keeping an employee management already had reasonable grounds to think careless or unqualified moves correction to no cost to the Government at any time.
Alternates
Alt I · APR 1984
FAR 46.308 — 'if it is contemplated that the contract will be on a no-fee basis, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.'
Alternate I is the no-fee version, substituting paragraphs (f) and (g). The six-month correction window and the disclosure duty survive word for word; what drops out is every fee-based remedy, because there is no fee — the Government is left with performing the correction elsewhere and charging the increased cost, requiring delivery of undelivered articles, or terminating for default. The inspection system and records are unchanged.
The 1 template that name it, with the line
Source: acquisition.gov, FAR 52.246-8, FAR 46.308 and FAR 46.705(a); RFO Part 46 model text (verified 2026-08-05)
This is research, not legal advice. It states what the regulation says about this clause and cites the paragraph behind it. It does not rule on your order, and it does not rule on whether a prime's markings are correct.