Why the Christian Doctrine Doesn’t Apply to Subcontracts—and the Danger of “Self-Deleting” Clauses

Few legal doctrines generate as much confusion among subcontractors as the Christian Doctrine. First articulated in a 1963 decision by the Court of Claims, the Christian Doctrine holds that certain mandatory clauses reflecting “deeply ingrained strands of public procurement policy” are automatically incorporated into federal prime contracts, even if they were mistakenly omitted from the written agreement. Over the years, this doctrine has been used by agencies and contractors alike to resolve disputes where critical clauses—such as those governing termination for convenience or equal opportunity—were not expressly included but should have been. However, a key limitation often gets lost in translation: the Christian Doctrine does not extend its reach to subcontracts.

This distinction was recently reinforced in federal contracting discussions that aimed to correct misconceptions about clause applicability. Subcontractors, particularly those working under commercial item agreements or unaware of the legal nuances, often assume that if a clause is mandatory for the prime contract, it must necessarily govern their own subcontract as well. But this assumption is incorrect. The Christian Doctrine applies only to agreements directly with the federal government. If a clause is not affirmatively flowed down and incorporated into the subcontract—either by reference or in full text—it simply does not apply. This is not just a procedural oversight; it can affect legal rights, liability exposure, and compliance requirements in significant ways.

For example, if a subcontractor is working under a commercial item subcontract and the prime fails to include FAR 52.204-21 (Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems), the subcontractor is not legally bound to comply with that clause—unless the clause is incorporated by the prime. This could create compliance gaps that expose the prime to government scrutiny, but the subcontractor may not be legally liable unless the clause appears in their subcontract. Conversely, if the clause is inserted by the prime even though it's not required, the subcontractor may find themselves subject to unnecessary or inapplicable requirements—especially in flowdown-heavy contracts involving defense or cybersecurity obligations.

Adding another layer of confusion is the industry shorthand around “self-deleting clauses.” Some subcontractors believe that if a clause was mistakenly flowed down, but doesn’t actually apply based on its prescription in the FAR, it simply “deletes itself” from the subcontract. While this term may be convenient from a risk management perspective, it has no basis in law. There is no such thing as a self-deleting clause. If a clause is present in the subcontract—regardless of whether it should have been—it may be enforceable unless both parties agree otherwise. Courts and boards generally interpret contracts based on what was agreed to, not what should have been agreed to based on regulatory prescription. The burden, therefore, falls on subcontractors to read, negotiate, and understand what has been incorporated into their agreements.

In a time of evolving acquisition policy and ongoing regulatory reform, clarity around the Christian Doctrine and clause applicability is more important than ever. The rules of engagement are not governed by assumption, but by what is written and agreed upon. Subcontractors must be vigilant in reviewing flowdown clauses and should never rely on the Christian Doctrine or the hope that an inappropriate clause will “delete itself.” In federal procurement, if it’s not in writing, it’s not in force—and if it is, you may be stuck with it.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the content at the time of publication, federal acquisition regulations are complex and subject to change. Readers should consult appropriate professionals for legal or compliance guidance related to their specific circumstances.