48 C.F.R. § 43.103

43.103 Types of contract modifications.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Contract modifications are of the following types:

(a) Bilateral. A bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) is a contract modification that is signed by the contractor and the contracting officer. Bilateral modifications are used to—

(1) Make negotiated equitable adjustments resulting from the issuance of a change order;

(2) Definitize letter contracts; and

(3) Reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts.

(b) Unilateral. A unilateral modification is a contract modification that is signed only by the contracting officer. Unilateral modifications are used, for example, to—

(1) Make administrative changes;

(2) Issue change orders;

(3) Make changes authorized by clauses other than a changes clause (e.g., Property clause, Options clause, or Suspension of Work clause); and

(4) Issue termination notices.

[48 FR 42386, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 2133, Jan. 10, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: D & H Distrib. Co. v. United States, 102 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
D & H Distrib. Co. v. United States, 102 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “1 The contracting officer characterized the July 6, 1989, modification to the contract as an "administrative change," which is a unilateral change authorized under part 43 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, see 48 C.F.R. § 43.103 (b)(1). Because the change was made pursuant…”
Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 142 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “48 C.F.R. § 43.103 (1989) provides, in pertinent part: Contract modifications are of the following types: (a) Bilateral.”
Transamerica Premier Ins. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 308 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “48 C.F.R. § 43.103 (b) (1991) authorizes the contracting officer to make certain contract modifications unilaterally.”
Sigma Constr., Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 13 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 48 C.F.R. § 43.103 . And, FAR 43.301 provides that the SF 30 “shall .”
Sperient Corp., Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 13 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 48 C.F.R. § 43.103 . And, FAR 43.301 provides that the SF 30 “shall .”
The GEO Grp. Inc v. Inslee (W.D. Wash. 2024). “at 12 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 43.103 ). GEO also contends that 6 “various routing or annual ‘modifications made to, or authorized by’ a contract may be 7 necessary to comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.