FAR 43.107—Contract clause.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 43.107 explains when a contracting officer may include the Notification of Changes clause at FAR 52.243-7 in a solicitation or contract, and when that clause should not be used. It focuses on the clause’s intended use in negotiated research and development or supply contracts for major weapon systems or principal subsystems, where informal direction or evolving technical requirements can create disputes over whether the Government has ordered a change. The section also sets a dollar-threshold limitation: if the expected contract amount is less than $1,000,000, the clause generally must not be used. The only stated exception is when the contracting officer anticipates circumstances that could lead a contractor to claim the Government made changes other than those identified in writing and signed by the contracting officer. In practice, this provision helps agencies manage change-order risk, preserve clear written authority for changes, and reduce disputes over constructive changes in complex, high-risk acquisitions.
Key Rules
Clause may be inserted
The contracting officer may include a clause substantially the same as FAR 52.243-7, Notification of Changes, in solicitations and contracts. This is permissive authority, not a universal requirement, so the clause should be used only when appropriate to the acquisition.
Primary intended use
The clause is available primarily for negotiated research and development or supply contracts involving major weapon systems or principal subsystems. That means it is aimed at complex, technically evolving procurements where changes are more likely to arise during performance.
Dollar threshold limit
If the expected contract amount is less than $1,000,000, the clause shall not be used. This creates a general prohibition for lower-dollar contracts, reflecting the Government’s judgment that the clause is not normally needed in smaller acquisitions.
Exception for anticipated disputes
The clause may still be used below $1,000,000 if the contracting officer anticipates situations that may lead the contractor to allege the Government made changes other than those identified in writing and signed by the contracting officer. The exception is meant for cases where the risk of constructive-change disputes justifies the clause.
Written, signed change authority
The section reinforces that changes should be identified in writing and signed by the contracting officer. This supports clear authority, reduces ambiguity, and helps distinguish authorized changes from informal direction or contractor assumptions.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Decide whether the Notification of Changes clause is appropriate for the acquisition, ensure it is used only in the types of contracts contemplated by the rule, and avoid using it when the expected contract amount is under $1,000,000 unless the exception applies. The contracting officer must also anticipate and evaluate the risk of alleged constructive changes and ensure any Government-directed changes are identified in writing and signed.
Contractor
Monitor Government communications and performance direction carefully, and rely on written, signed change authority rather than informal instructions. If the contractor believes the Government has changed the work outside the written change process, it may assert a claim or allegation of constructive change, which is exactly the risk this clause is designed to address.
Agency
Use the clause consistently with acquisition strategy and contract type, especially in negotiated R&D or supply procurements for major weapon systems or principal subsystems. The agency should support contracting officers with policies and oversight that promote clear change control and reduce disputes over unauthorized direction.
Practical Implications
This section is mainly about managing change risk in complex procurements, not about routine use in every contract. If the acquisition is not a negotiated R&D or major weapon-system supply effort, the clause may be unnecessary or inappropriate.
The $1,000,000 threshold is important: using the clause below that amount without a valid reason would be inconsistent with the rule. Contracting officers should document why the exception applies if they choose to use it anyway.
The clause is a tool for avoiding constructive-change disputes, so it works best when the Government has disciplined internal controls over who can direct work and how changes are documented.
Contractors should be alert to informal technical direction, schedule pressure, or verbal requests that are not signed by the contracting officer. Those situations can create disputes over whether a change occurred and whether compensation is due.
A common pitfall is assuming the clause itself authorizes changes. It does not; it simply provides a framework for notifying the contractor and preserving the parties’ rights when changes are directed properly or alleged to have been directed improperly.
Official Regulatory Text
The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.243-7 , Notification of Changes, in solicitations and contracts. The clause is available for use primarily in negotiated research and development or supply contracts for the acquisition of major weapon systems or principal subsystems. If the contract amount is expected to be less than $1,000,000, the clause shall not be used, unless the contracting officer anticipates that situations will arise that may result in a contractor alleging that the Government has effected changes other than those identified as such in writing and signed by the contracting officer.