FAR 33.210—Contracting officer’s authority.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 33.210 explains the contracting officer’s authority to decide or resolve contract claims under the Disputes statute and the limits on that authority. It covers the basic rule that contracting officers may act on claims arising under or relating to a contract, but only within the specific limits of their warrants and subject to agency policy. It also addresses the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under FAR 33.214 as a permitted way to resolve claims. Just as important, it identifies two major carve-outs where the contracting officer has no authority: claims or disputes involving penalties or forfeitures that another federal agency is specifically authorized by statute or regulation to administer, settle, or determine, and any claim involving fraud. In practice, this section tells contracting officers when they can issue a decision or negotiate a resolution, and when they must stop and refer the matter elsewhere. For contractors, it signals that not every dispute can be handled through the normal contracting officer claims process, especially where fraud or another agency’s statutory enforcement authority is involved.
Key Rules
General claims authority
Contracting officers may decide or resolve claims arising under or relating to a contract subject to the Disputes statute. This is the default rule, but it applies only to the extent allowed by the contracting officer’s warrant and any other applicable limits.
Warrant limits control
A contracting officer’s authority is not unlimited; it is confined by the specific limitations of the warrant. If the claim exceeds the officer’s delegated authority, the matter must be handled by someone with proper authority or through the required agency process.
ADR is permitted
Contracting officers may use alternative dispute resolution procedures to resolve claims when doing so is consistent with agency policy and FAR 33.214. ADR is an authorized tool, not a separate source of unlimited authority.
No authority over certain penalties
The contracting officer cannot decide or settle claims for penalties or forfeitures that are prescribed by statute or regulation and that another federal agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle, or determine. Those matters belong to the designated agency, not the contracting officer.
Fraud claims are excluded
The contracting officer has no authority to settle, compromise, pay, or adjust any claim involving fraud. If fraud is suspected or involved, the matter must be referred and handled through the appropriate fraud-related channels rather than resolved as an ordinary contract claim.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Decide or resolve contract claims within the scope of the warrant and applicable agency policy; use ADR only when authorized; identify and stop handling claims that involve statutory penalties or forfeitures assigned to another agency; refuse to settle, compromise, pay, or adjust any claim involving fraud.
Agency
Establish policies governing the use of ADR and the exercise of contracting officer authority; ensure warrants and delegations clearly define limits; route penalty, forfeiture, and fraud matters to the proper offices or agencies.
Contractor
Present claims through the proper disputes process; understand that the contracting officer may not have authority over fraud-related matters or certain statutory penalties; cooperate with ADR when offered and authorized.
Other Federal Agency with Statutory Authority
Administer, settle, or determine penalties or forfeitures when another statute or regulation specifically assigns that responsibility to the agency.
Practical Implications
Contracting officers should confirm they have warrant authority before acting on a claim; a decision made outside delegated authority can be vulnerable to challenge.
Not every dispute can be resolved at the contracting officer level. If the issue involves fraud or a penalty/forfeiture assigned to another agency, it must be referred rather than negotiated as a normal claim.
ADR can speed resolution, but only if agency policy allows it and the process is used within the contracting officer’s authority.
Contractors should not assume silence or delay means the contracting officer can settle everything; jurisdictional limits may require referral or suspension of action.
A key pitfall is mixing ordinary contract administration issues with fraud allegations. Once fraud is implicated, the contracting officer’s settlement authority stops, and the matter must move to the proper investigative or enforcement channel.
Official Regulatory Text
Except as provided in this section, contracting officers are authorized, within any specific limitations of their warrants, to decide or resolve all claims arising under or relating to a contract subject to the Disputes statute. In accordance with agency policies and 33.214 , contracting officers are authorized to use ADR procedures to resolve claims. The authority to decide or resolve claims does not extend to- (a) A claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation that another Federal agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle, or determine; or (b) The settlement, compromise, payment, or adjustment of any claim involving fraud.