Service subcontractors often focus on deliverables and acceptance criteria but overlook the warranty that follows acceptance. That can create an unexpected obligation to reperform work at no additional charge after the prime has already accepted and used the service.
The right review question is not simply whether a warranty exists. It is what standard applies, how long it lasts, what notice is required, and what remedies the prime can pursue.
The FAR service warranty is a useful reference point
FAR 52.246-20 states that covered services are warranted at acceptance to be free from defects in workmanship and conform to contract requirements. The clause calls for a specified notice period and allows the Government to require correction or reperformance at no cost, or pursue other stated remedies if correction is not performed.
Official source: FAR 52.246-20 — Warranty of Services.
Prime-drafted language can be broader
- A longer notice period than the prime owes the Government.
- Subjective standards such as complete satisfaction rather than stated requirements.
- Reperformance obligations without a clear causal connection to subcontractor error.
- Costs for substitute performance, delay, or third-party impacts layered onto reperformance.
- No exclusion for defects caused by prime instructions, Government-furnished information, or later changes.
Tie the warranty to an objective baseline
The statement of work, deliverable specifications, service levels, and acceptance criteria should define what conformity means. If those documents are missing or can be changed unilaterally, a promise to reperform nonconforming services becomes harder to price.
Coordinate warranty and liability language
A narrow reperformance remedy can be transformed into much larger exposure when the subcontract separately includes broad indemnity, uncapped damages, or backcharge provisions. Review those clauses together and ask whether the warranty remedy is exclusive, cumulative, capped, or subject to other limitations.