The contractor is usually responsible for delivering the product or service specified in the contract at the contracted price on the agreed-to date. An exception to this rule is when defective government specifications make performance impractical or impossible. In such cases a constructive change is considered to have occurred. When the contractor claims a constructive change has occurred, it must prove (1) the specifications were, in fact, defective or it would have been impossible to comply with them and (2) the government – not the contractor – assumed the risk.

Specifications are defective or impossible. In the case of defective specifications, it is usually enough for the contractor to give a persuasive explanation how the specifications could not be met with ordinary diligence because they were defective. To show actual impossibility, which is harder to prove, the contractor must show that the contract’s requirements exceeded what any contractor could possibly achieve given "the state of the art".

Allocating risk. There are no hard "rules" in determining whether the procuring agency or contractor should be assigned the increased costs resulting from either defective specifications or impossible performance. The substantial case law defines eleven categories to be considered when a judge is to decide who assumes the risk. Some of the salient categories are:

Contractor’s assurances. Level of assurance expressed by the contractor before award of the contract is often considered in determining risk-the higher the assurance given by the contractor, especially if his expertise is greater than the procuring agency, the more risk is assumed.

Contractor’s opportunity to acquire knowledge. If the contractor had knowledge or should have had it then he usually must assume the risk that the contract’s requirements were impossible to comply with.

Who drafted the requirements? When the government originates them the presumption is the government assumes the risks of defective or impossible specifications while vice versa if the contractor originated them.

Superior knowledge - did the government disclose it? If a procuring agency fails to disclose information to a contractor that is vital for successful performance then the contractor is not expected to know and the government assumes risk. In fact such a failure to disclose is, by itself, grounds for a constructive change.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}