What’s the difference between a suspension of work and a constructive change? For federal contractors, there are two important differences:

1. If you want profit, prove a constructive change.
2. If any other contract clause affords an equitable adjustment (e.g., Changes Clause), the Suspension of Work clause won’t help you.

To recover from a suspension of work, a contractor must show:

1. Contract performance was delayed;
2. Government directly caused the delay;
3. The delay was for an unreasonable period of time; and
4. The contractor suffered damages therefrom (excluding profit); and
5. No other clause provides an equitable adjustment to the Contractor

FAR § 52.242-14

To prove a constructive change, a contractor must show:

1. Any written or oral order from the Contracting Officer;
2. Not a directed change;
3. That caused a change;
4. Contractor gave timely notice that it considered the order as a change; and
5. The contractor suffered damages therefrom.

FAR § 52.243-4(b)

In a recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals decision, the Board agreed with the contractor in finding an unreasonable delay (179 days) and awarded damages for a suspension of the work.  In the same decision, the Board also found a constructive change in the contractor’s favor.  The Board did not discuss why the suspension of work clause prevailed when the contractor may have been able to show a constructive change (unless, perhaps, notice of a constructive change was inadequate).

BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, CBCA No. 5410, March 26, 2018