A contractor is entitled to recover additional costs when the government orders accelerated performance. When an express acceleration order is made, which assumes the government is accepting increased costs, there is no controversy. Controversy results from "constructive" accelerations. For example, the government may require a contractor to meet the original completion date despite the occurrence of an excusable delay that was the fault of the government. Since such delays entitle a contractor to an extension of time for completing the contract, requiring the contractor to meet the original scheduled completion date is tantamount to an acceleration order and hence a constructive change.

The current state of case law requires three conditions be met for a successful claim for acceleration of work:

1. The delays giving rise to the accelerations are excusable. These are delays beyond the control of the contractor and not caused by their negligence. Common examples include express or constructive changes, labor problems, weather, government acts, subcontractor or supplier delays, acts of God, etc.

2. The contractor was ordered to accelerate. Examples of constructive orders to accelerate include government request to "speed it up" or "all out effort", threats of the government to terminate for default, statements by the government that delays may not be tolerated on high priority contracts. Acceleration has not been held to exist where the government urges the contractor to complete work by its original schedule or to submit a plan where it can catch up to its original schedule.

3. The contractor in fact accelerated performance and incurred extra cost. Actual acceleration at extra cost is required even if the efforts were not successful.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}