DoD Will Consider Contract Adjustments Addressing Inflation
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.12.22
On Friday September 9, 2022, the Principal Director for DoD Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued a Memorandum titled “Managing the Effects of Inflation with Existing Contracts.” The Memorandum provides guidance to Contracting Officers about the range of approaches available to address the effects of inflation on the Defense Industrial Base. Of note, it highlights two paths contractors may pursue to recover for inflation under fixed-price contracts.
First, the Memorandum notes that the ability to recognize cost increases is largely dependent on contract type, asserting that “[c]ontractors performing under firm-fixed-price contracts that were priced and negotiated before the onset of the current economic conditions generally bear the risk of cost increases.” This is similar to guidance DPC issued in May encouraging Contracting Officers to consider including economic price adjustment (EPA) clauses in new contracts but expressing skepticism about contractors’ ability to recover for inflation under existing fixed-price contracts. However, the new Memorandum allows that “there may be circumstances where an accommodation [such as schedule relief or amended contract requirements] can be reached by mutual agreement of the contracting parties, perhaps to address acute impacts on small business and other suppliers.”
Second, the Memorandum states that DoD “will consider” contractor requests for “Extraordinary Contractual Relief”—including potential upward price adjustments under firm-fixed-price contracts—under Public Law 85-804. That law, as implemented at FAR Part 50, allows DoD (and other limited agencies) to amend contracts without consideration when doing so is essential to the national defense, when a contractor suffers a loss under a defense contract because of Government action, and/or to correct or mitigate the effect of mistakes. The Government’s authority under 85-804 is broad but has certain important limitations, including: (1) 85-804 authority may not be relied upon where other adequate legal authority exists; (2) the funding must not exceed appropriated amounts (except when used to approve indemnification agreements); (3) any amendment can only be to the “extent necessary to avoid such impairment to the contractor’s productive ability”; (4) the contractor must suffer a “loss,” and not merely a decrease in anticipated profits; and (5) the contractor must submit a request for contract amendment before all obligations under the contract have been discharged. The Memorandum notes that requests for Extraordinary Contractual Relief must satisfy “stringent criteria,” but the fact that DPC is encouraging such requests signals a potential willingness by DoD to meaningfully consider them and may provide hope for contractors struggling with the effects of inflation.
In light of this new guidance, contractors impacted by inflation should (1) continue to scrutinize their existing contracts for potential remedy granting clauses that would address inflation; (2) consider requesting both price and non-price accommodations; and (3) consider whether to seek Extraordinary Contractual Relief under Public Law 85-804.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development





