Lockheed Martin · 2025 · public supplier portal

CORPDOC 3 — General Provisions for Fixed Price Non-Commercial Subcontracts under a U.S. Government Prime Contract

This document names 5 FAR and DFARS clause numbers. That is what Lockheed Martin sends down — not what binds you. Answer the profile and each one is ruled below, in this browser, against the base named in the masthead.

Also: this reads FAR and DFARS clause numbers. It reads nothing else in your document. It says nothing about indemnity, insurance, limits of liability, governing law, payment terms, warranty terms, or the dates you owe the prime. None of that is FAR. None of it is ruled here. It is often the part that costs money.

the document, on Lockheed Martin's own site ↗ · read from txt/lockheed-corpdoc-3-2025.txt @ 103934a5ec69

Save or restore your answers

Your answers stay in this browser. This one keeps them, so a reload does not lose your work. It is not a backup: clear the browser and they are gone. Download the file to keep a copy of your own.

or move them as text

The profile

0 answered · 25 to go

loading the public verdict bundle…

Also from Lockheed Martin

0CORPDOC 1 — General Provisions for Commercial Subcontracts/Purchase Ordersno clause list 5CORPDOC 2 — General Provisions for Commercial Products/Services under a U.S. Government Prime Contractclauses cited 76CORPDOC 2A — FAR/DFARS Flowdown Provisions for Commercial Products/Services under a DoD Prime Contractclauses cited 143CORPDOC 3A — FAR/DFARS Flowdown Provisions for Fixed Price Non-Commercial Items under a DoD Prime Contractclauses cited 5CORPDOC 4 — General Provisions for Cost-Reimbursement/T&M Subcontracts under a U.S. Government Prime Contractclauses cited 155CORPDOC 4A — FAR/DFARS Flowdown Provisions for Cost-Reimbursement/T&M Subcontracts under a DoD Prime Contractclauses cited

This is research, not legal advice. It rules public regulation against the answers you give and cites the paragraph behind each ruling so you can check it. It does not rule on whether Lockheed Martin's markings are correct, and a clause with no flow-down mandate in the regulation is still a contract term once it is in your subcontract.