Legal Mechanisms for Dealing with Changed Circumstances in Federal Contracting

Legal Mechanisms for Dealing with Changed Circumstances in Federal Contracting

Legal Sidebari

Legal Mechanisms for Dealing with Changed
Circumstances in Federal Contracting
September 10, 2021
The federal government enters into hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts for the acquisition of goods
and services every year. The complexity of these acquisitions run the gamut, ranging from the
development of propulsion systems to support missions to Mars to the provision of housekeeping services
and standard office supplies. Evolving national interests and unforeseen events such as natural disasters,
acts of God, acts of war, cyberattacks, and changing executive priorities brought on by new presidential
administrations can substantively alter federal acquisition priorities. For example, the COVID-19
pandemic and related mandates and recommendations (i.e., to practice social distancing, work from home,
shelter in place, and self-quarantine) impacted government contracts by disrupting supply chains and
business operations. These disruptions made it difficult or impossible for some contractors to perform
government procurement contracts as originally contemplated and prompted the issuance of guidance on
how contracting officers should manage contracts in light of the pandemic. Another example occurred
when President Biden, in the first month of taking office, announced a change in policies regarding the
security of the southern border of the United States. The policy change manifested in an initial pause and
then a termination of some border wall construction contracts. Similarly, the decision to withdraw
American troops and contractors from Afghanistan also likely prompted modified procurement priorities
to address, for instance, a reduced need for or redeployment of contracted security services, food, and
other services and supplies.
Federal procurement law is designed to provide agencies with the flexibility necessary to adapt to these
and the innumerable other issues that might arise during the procurement contract lifecycle and impact
federal acquisition priorities. Federal law often requires the incorporation in federal procurement
contracts several standard clauses that provide legal mechanisms through which the government and
contractors can adapt to changed circumstances and the government’s evolving needs. This Legal Sidebar
analyzes a selection of these clauses, specifically the Changes, Stop-Work Order, Excusable Delay, and
Termination for Convenience clauses, and provides a few examples of how each could be applied in
practice. Although these clauses can be used to address countless situations, the examples that follow
involve three issues the government is currently addressing: border wall construction, the COVID-19
pandemic, and U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10640
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Changes Clauses
Federal procurement contracts generally must include some variation of a Changes clause. These clauses
authorize federal contracting officers to make unilateral changes “within the general scope of the
contract” to address the government’s changed needs. Federal law does not expressly define the phrase
“within the general scope of the contract.” Courts and contract boards of appeals generally have found
that the phrase applies where the government requested changed work is not “so drastic that it effectively
requires the contractor to perform duties materially different from those originally bargained for” and is
similar enough to what was originally contracted that it could “hav[e] been fairly and reasonably within
the contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered into.” Each Changes clause specifies
categories of changes that can be made, which can include “the method or manner of performance of
work,” the time or place of performance or delivery, the “[m]ethod of shipment or packing,” and contract
specifications. When warranted, the parties can negotiate an “equitable adjustment” to account for any
reasonable increases or decreases in costs associated with the change. Like other situations in which a
federal agency and contractor cannot settle an issue that arises within the context of contract
administration, the federal Contracts Dispute Act and any applicable Disputes clause contained in the
contract generally govern situations in which the parties cannot agree on an equitable adjustment.
For example, in response to the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. Marine Corps
might have invoked applicable changes clauses to have contractors move or dispose of U.S. government
equipment in contractor control or to shift contractor personnel who had been supporting military
operations in Afghanistan to other work assignments.
Stop-Work Order Clauses
Stop-Work Order clauses authorize the suspension or delay of performance on a specific contract and are
required in many non-construction contracts. (Fixed-price construction contracts generally must include a
similar Suspension of Work clause.) Stop Work Order clauses permit agency personnel to require a
contractor to “stop all, or any part, of the work called for by this contract for a period of 90 days after the
order is delivered to the Contractor, and for any further period to which the parties may agree.” When
Stop-Work Order clauses are triggered, contractors generally have a right to an equitable adjustment of
the contract to receive reasonable costs associated with halting and restarting the contract. When
implementing stop-work orders, contractors also are generally required to “take all reasonable steps to
minimize the incurrence of costs” to the government, which could force contractors to reassign employees
to other projects, place employees on unpaid leave, or terminate employees, at least temporarily.
For instance, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, in response to President Biden’s January 2021
proclamation ordering a “pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall,” utilized
Stop-Work Order clauses to halt performance of various contracts associated with the construction of
barriers along the southern border while agencies assessed barrier construction plans in accordance with
the President’s directives.
Similarly, in response to the decision to suspend operations of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul after the
withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the State Department might have issued stop work orders on
contracts to provide support services to embassy personnel while the agency determines diplomatic
operations moving forward and to provide time for assessing whether contract changes or terminations are
in the government’s best interest.
Excusable Delays Clauses
Federal law requires that many federal contracts include an Excusable Delay clause. These provisions
provide contractors protections from default liability for delays triggered by “causes beyond the control

Congressional Research Service
3
and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” Triggering events can include “acts of God or of
the public enemy,” “unusually severe weather,” “epidemics,” “quarantine restrictions,” and “acts of the
Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity.” This clause potentially could authorize
contractors who cannot perform work on time because of covered events more time to complete
performance without suffering contractual consequences (such as payment of liquidated damages). The
clause only offers schedule relief (i.e., more time to perform). It does not authorize cost relief.
In its guidance on contract management during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the Office of
Management and Budget noted that excusable delay clauses could be used to provide flexibilities to
contractors whose performance timelines slipped because employees were required to comply with
pandemic-related quarantines.
It also is possible that the decrease in safety and security following the U.S military withdrawal from
Afghanistan and the fall of the Afghan military and elected government to the Taliban could qualify as
“acts of . . . the public enemy” or “acts of the Government in [] its sovereign . . . capacity” that would
justify excusable delays in contract performance.
Termination for Convenience Clauses
Termination for convenience refers to the exercise of the government’s right to require contractors to halt
performance of all or part of the work stipulated by a contract before the contract’s expiration “when it is
in the Government’s interest.” Contracting officers have wide latitude to terminate a contract for the
government’s convenience.
The government’s right to terminate contracts for convenience developed from Civil War-related statutes
designed to allow the government to avoid unnecessary expenditures after cessation of hostilities.
Although these wartime statutes and relevant contracts did not expressly authorize the government’s right
to terminate contracts, courts nonetheless concluded that agency termination actions were legally
permitted and implicitly part of the contracts. Eventually, federal procurement regulations were put in
place that generally require federal agencies to include express termination clauses in procurement
contracts. A commonly required Termination for Convenience clause states:
The Contracting Officer, by written notice, may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, when it
is in the Government’s interest. If this contract is terminated, the Government shall be liable only
for payment under the payment provisions of this contract for services rendered before the effective
date of termination.
When a contracting officer notifies a contractor of a termination, the contractor must, among other things,
immediately stop performing the terminated portion of the contract or inform the contracting officer of
activities that cannot be immediately halted, and terminate any subcontracts related to the terminated
work.
While exercising the right to terminate a contract for convenience allows the government to reduce waste
associated with the purchase of supplies or services it no longer needs, its use generally does not absolve
the government of all liabilities under the terminated contract. The government typically is liable to the
contractor for costs, including reasonable profits, for the portion of the contract already performed, certain
costs incurred in anticipation of performance, and costs associated with terminating the contract. The
government’s liability for terminating for convenience, however, is more limited than what would be
applicable for breach of contract, as it generally does not cover anticipatory profits, costs of work not yet
performed, or consequential damages.
Federal agencies have utilized the termination for convenience clauses to terminate several contracts for
the construction of barriers along the southern border after President Biden’s January 2021 proclamation
ordered a pause in construction while relevant agencies “develop a plan for the redirection of funds

Congressional Research Service
4
concerning the southern border wall, . . . includ[ing] consideration of terminating or repurposing contracts
with private contractors engaged in wall construction.”
The withdrawal of troops and suspension of embassy operations in Afghanistan also likely prompted
contract terminations for supplies and services that the U.S. government no longer needed.

Author Information

David H. Carpenter

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10640 · VERSION 1 · NEW