C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS › PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES › Subpart 52.2—Text of Provisions and Clauses

48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5

52.236-5 Material and Workmanship.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

As prescribed in 36.505, insert the following clause:

Material and Workmanship (APR 1984)

(a) All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract. References in the specifications to equipment, material, articles, or patented processes by trade name, make, or catalog number, shall be regarded as establishing a standard of quality and shall not be construed as limiting competition. The Contractor may, at its option, use any equipment, material, article, or process that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to that named in the specifications, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract.

(b) The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer's approval of the machinery and mechanical and other equipment to be incorporated into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer the name of the manufacturer, the model number, and other information concerning the performance, capacity, nature, and rating of the machinery and mechanical and other equipment. When required by this contract or by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall also obtain the Contracting Officer's approval of the material or articles which the Contractor contemplates incorporating into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor shall provide full information concerning the material or articles. When directed to do so, the Contractor shall submit samples for approval at the Contractor's expense, with all shipping charges prepaid. Machinery, equipment, material, and articles that do not have the required approval shall be installed or used at the risk of subsequent rejection.

(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the work any employee the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.

(End of clause) [48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 48995, Nov. 28, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1991–2007 · leading case: Blinderman Construction Co. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blinderman Construction Co. v. United States (1997) uscfc · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 (c). Plaintiff has presented no evidence from which the court might infer that plaintiff undertook to remove said concrete with alacrity and thereafter accomplished this task by the most efficient means feasible.”
CEMS, Inc. v. United States (2003) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 (1997). Mr. Cox replaced Mr.”
C. Sanchez & Son, Inc. v. United States (1991) cc · cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 ; Contract Clause 47—Material and Workmanship (APR 1984); DX D, p.”
United States Fire Insurance v. United States (2007) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 (c) (Oct. 1,1995). With regard to progress payments for materials delivered to the site, the contract at issue also contained Air Mobility Command FAR Supplement (AMCFARS) clause 5352.”
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States (1993) uscfc “” Defendant argues out that the wall thickness requirement represents a design specification.”
Professional Services Supplier, Inc. v. United States (2000) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 (c). . This clause provides, in pertinent portion, that ''[i]n addition to any other warranties in this contract, the Contractor warrants .”
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States (1998) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 52.236-5 (a), (c) (1984). However, in accord "with the fact that the contractor must ensure the work is skillful and workmanlike the contractor is responsible for inspections and quality control.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.