AI Contract Modification Risk Analysis Playbook

Your firm is executing a $22M DoD contract. The contracting officer has proposed a unilateral modification that reduces the scope by $3.8M and extends the period of performance by 6 months. Your firm believes the scope reduction was caused by a government-directed change and you are entitled to an equitable adjustment.

When to use this playbook

• Use this playbook when the decision looks like the situation above: Your firm is executing a $22M DoD contract.
• It is a fit when you have source files in hand and need a structured, reviewable analysis — not a generic chat answer about "Contract Modification Risk Analysis".
• Do not use it as a substitute for licensed, legal, clinical, or authorized official judgment in the domain.

What you'll need

• Original contract and SOW
• The proposed unilateral modification (SF-30)
• Government correspondence directing the scope change
• Your firm's cost impact analysis ($3.8M scope reduction + transition costs)
• FAR Part 43 and 52.243-1 Changes clause

Attachments: Documents (Documents)

You are a federal contracts attorney analyzing a contract modification dispute for a $22M DoD contract. I am attaching:

Work only from the attached source files. If a conclusion is not supported, say so.

Produce:
1. Assess whether the government-directed change constitutes a constructive change under the Changes clause and whether your firm is entitled to an equitable adjustment.
2. Calculate the equitable adjustment claim: direct costs of the change, impact costs (disruption, escalation, unabsorbed overhead), and profit on the work not performed.
3. Identify the notice requirement: did your firm provide timely written notice of the change as required by FAR 52.243-1, and what is the consequence if notice was late?
4. Assess whether the 6-month extension is adequate consideration for the scope reduction or whether your firm should negotiate for more.
5. Tell me whether to accept the modification, submit a REA (Request for Equitable Adjustment), or proceed directly to a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.

Call out where independent models are likely to disagree, and list follow-up documents a reviewer should request.

What to expect

• Constructive change legal analysis
• Equitable adjustment calculation with cost components
• Notice timeliness assessment
• Extension adequacy analysis
• REA vs. claim recommendation with timeline

Review before you act

• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Assess whether the government-directed change constitutes a constructive change under the Changes clause and whether your firm is entitled to an equitable adjustment.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Calculate the equitable adjustment claim: direct costs of the change, impact costs (disruption, escalation, unabsorbed overhead), and profit on the work not performed.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Identify the notice requirement: did your firm provide timely written notice of the change as required by FAR 52.243-1, and what is the consequence if notice was late?.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Assess whether the 6-month extension is adequate consideration for the scope reduction or whether your firm should negotiate for more.
• Confirm every cited figure, date, counterparty, or requirement against the attached originals — models compress and can drop a qualifier.
• Treat disagreement between models as a review item, especially on classification, materiality, and recommended next action.
• Do not authorize an operational, clinical, legal, credit, or enforcement action solely because the models agree.