Federal contract problems are often won or lost through documentation, timing, communication, and contract administration discipline. For example, the FAR construction Changes clause requires written notice when a contractor treats certain contracting officer direction as a change order, and it can limit recovery for costs incurred too far before notice. The clause also requires the contractor to assert its right to adjustment within a defined period unless extended by the Government.

MSII helps clients organize the facts, understand the contract path, communicate clearly, and build a record before the issue turns into a formal claim, CPARS dispute, cure notice, show-cause response, or termination-risk event.

Yes, but success usually depends on the strength of the facts, contract language, documentation, and presentation. In FY2025, the ASBCA disposed of 140 cases on the merits, and 67% of those decisions found merit in whole or in part. The ASBCA also dismissed 259 cases, and its report notes that the majority of dismissals reflect settlement.

That does not mean every appeal is worth pursuing. It means contractors should take disputes seriously, preserve records early, and evaluate the best path before giving up valid rights.

Sometimes. GAO’s FY2025 bid protest report shows that GAO sustained 14% of protests decided on the merits, but the broader effectiveness rate was 52%, meaning protesters obtained some form of relief through either a sustained protest or agency corrective action. GAO also noted that many protests never reach a merits decision because agencies voluntarily take corrective action instead of defending the protest.

MSII does not act as legal counsel, but can support contractors and counsel with procurement analysis, solicitation review, evaluation issue spotting, documentation review, and factual support.

A Request for Equitable Adjustment, or REA, is a contractor’s request for a fair adjustment to contract price, schedule, or terms when the contractor believes a Government action, change, delay, defective specification, or other contract event increased the cost or time required to perform.

The FAR Changes clauses provide the basic framework for equitable adjustments. For example, FAR 52.243-1 states that when a Government change causes an increase or decrease in cost or time, the contracting officer shall make an equitable adjustment and modify the contract.

A claim is more formal. FAR 2.101 defines a claim as a written demand or assertion by one contracting party seeking, as a matter of right, payment in a sum certain, adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. For contractor monetary claims over $100,000, certification is required under the Contract Disputes Act.

An REA is often used as a less adversarial request for adjustment, while a claim starts a more formal dispute process. MSII can help clients organize the factual record, quantify impacts, prepare supporting documentation, and work with counsel when a matter needs to move into formal claim territory.

Construction disputes can be expensive, technical, and time-consuming. Arcadis’ 2025 Construction Disputes Report found that the average value of disputes in North America was $60.1 million, a significant increase over the prior reported value of $43.0 million. The report also identified an average North American dispute duration of about 12.5 months.

HKA’s construction claims research also emphasizes that construction disputes are driven by issues such as change in scope, design problems, late approvals, workmanship issues, cash flow pressures, and delivery-method-specific risks.

For small businesses, even a much smaller dispute can threaten cash flow, bonding, past performance, and future work.

Liquidated damages can create significant financial exposure. FAR 11.501 explains that liquidated damages are used when timely performance is important and the Government’s damages would be difficult or impossible to estimate accurately. The FAR also states that liquidated damages are not punitive; they are intended to compensate the Government for probable damages.

For construction contracts, FAR 11.502 requires the solicitation to describe the daily rate of liquidated damages, and the rate may include estimated daily Government inspection and superintendence costs, along with other expected expenses associated with delayed completion.

MSII helps contractors assess schedule risk, document excusable delays, improve communication, and reduce the chance that liquidated damages become a major financial threat.

Take it seriously and respond strategically. Under FAR 49.402-3, the Government may use cure notices and show-cause notices when termination for default is being considered. For small businesses, the contracting officer must provide a copy of any cure notice or show-cause notice to the contracting office’s small business specialist and the SBA Area Office nearest the contractor.

For fixed-price construction contracts, FAR 52.249-10 allows the Government to terminate the contractor’s right to proceed if the contractor fails to prosecute or complete the work on time. The clause also states that the contractor and sureties may be liable for damages and increased completion costs, unless the delay is excusable and properly documented.

MSII helps contractors organize the facts, develop a response strategy, prepare corrective action narratives, communicate with the contracting officer, and work toward avoiding default where possible.

CPARS matters because it affects future opportunities. FAR 42.1501 states that past performance information, including ratings and narratives, is relevant for future source selection purposes and that CPARS is the official source for past performance information.

FAR 42.1503 gives contractors up to 14 calendar days to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information after receiving a past performance evaluation. It also states that evaluations and contractor responses may be used to support future award decisions.

MSII helps contractors respond to CPARS with facts, documentation, corrective actions, and professional narratives that protect the company’s future competitiveness.

Yes. This is one of MSII’s core focuses. Small businesses often carry major performance responsibility while having less leverage, fewer internal resources, and less experience navigating contracting officer communications, prime contractor pressure, payment issues, CPARS risk, REAs, and termination threats.

MSII helps small businesses stabilize difficult contract situations, organize the facts, communicate professionally, protect their position, and pursue practical outcomes. Michael E. Smith II brings more than 14 years of federal contracting and procurement experience, including contractor-side leadership, Air Force contracting, federal construction contracting, subcontract management, joint ventures, source selection, FAR/DFARS compliance, and Microsoft-based process development.

No consultant, attorney, or expert should guarantee a contract outcome, claim result, CPARS change, protest result, payment recovery, or termination reversal.

What MSII can do is help improve the quality of the contractor’s position by strengthening documentation, clarifying the contract path, improving communication, identifying risks, supporting corrective action planning, and helping the client present facts in a clear and organized manner.

That matters because many disputes turn on the quality of the record, the timing of notice, the clarity of the contractor’s position, and the ability to connect facts to contract requirements.

The available data does not prove that every contractor who uses a consultant will get a better outcome. But it does support the value of specialist involvement in complex disputes. HKA notes that construction disputes are often highly technical, involve multiple parties and legal interpretations, and can be time-consuming and expensive to unravel. HKA also states that expert witnesses and forensic specialists can provide objective evidence and help catalyze fair dispute resolution.

In practical terms, a consultant like MSII can help contractors avoid common mistakes: waiting too long, failing to document impacts, responding emotionally instead of factually, ignoring notice requirements, submitting weak REAs, failing to address CPARS quickly, or allowing a performance issue to escalate into default risk.

No. MSII is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or legal representation. MSII provides contracts, procurement, acquisition, documentation, process, negotiation-support, and expert consulting services.

For formal claims, bid protests, litigation, or legal strategy, MSII can work alongside the client’s attorney to support the factual, contract administration, procurement, and documentation aspects of the matter.