Aron C. Beezley and Owen E. Salyers | BuildSmart
A cure notice is one of the most serious warning signs a government contractor can receive. While it is not yet a termination, it is often the final step before the government moves to terminate a contract for default — an outcome that can have significant financial and reputational consequences, including potential impacts on future past performance evaluations and responsibility determinations.
Contractors who receive a cure notice should assume that the agency is building a record to justify a default termination. The contractor’s response in the first few days is therefore critical. In many cases, the contractor can still prevent termination, preserve defenses, and reposition the matter for a more favorable outcome. But speed and discipline are essential.
This post summarizes what contractors should do immediately after receiving a cure notice, with a particular focus on the first 72 hours.
What Is a Cure Notice?
A cure notice is a written notice issued by the contracting officer informing the contractor that the government believes the contractor is failing to perform in accordance with contract requirements and providing the contractor an opportunity to “cure” the failure within a specified time period.
Cure notices are most often issued under FAR 52.249-8 (Default — Fixed-Price Supply and Service) and FAR 52.249-10 (Default — Fixed-Price Construction), among other default clauses. Generally, cure notices are required when the government intends to terminate for default for reasons other than late delivery and the contract’s remaining performance period is sufficient to allow the contractor time to correct the issue.
The key takeaway is simple: A cure notice is not routine correspondence. It is the government formally documenting grounds for default.
Why the First 72 Hours Matter
Many contractors make the mistake of treating a cure notice as a standard contract administration dispute. That approach is risky. By the time the cure notice is issued, the contracting officer has often consulted with agency counsel and program leadership, and the government may already be planning next steps. The contractor’s early response will influence whether the government believes the contractor is taking the issue seriously, capable of completing performance, and worth working with rather than terminating. Even if the contractor ultimately disputes the government’s allegations, the first 72 hours should be treated as a high-priority business and legal event.
- Step One: Escalate Internally Immediately (Hours 1–6)
The first and most important step is ensuring the cure notice reaches the right people. Upon receipt, the contractor should immediately elevate the cure notice to senior leadership, the program manager, contracts administration, in-house counsel (if applicable), and finance (if performance issues may implicate funding, labor charging, or cost recovery).
Contractors should assume that the cure notice will have implications beyond the immediate contract. A termination for default can trigger disputes, bonding issues, subcontractor claims, negative CPARS ratings, and even suspension/debarment concerns depending on the circumstances.
In short, do not allow the cure notice to sit with only the project team. - Step Two: Calendar the Deadline and Confirm the Method of Response (Hours 1–12)
Cure notices typically provide a specific period — often 10 days — for the contractor to cure the deficiency or provide an adequate written response. That timeline can vary depending on the contract terms and the nature of the alleged failure. Contractors should immediately confirm the exact deadline and time zone, whether the response must be submitted through email, a portal, or another system, whether a delivery/read receipt should be requested, and whether the government has required specific documentation. Missing the cure deadline is often treated as a concession that the contractor is unable to perform. - Step Three: Preserve the Record (Hours 6–24)
A cure notice is the start of a dispute record — whether the contractor wants it to be or not. Contractors should immediately implement a document preservation plan. This includes preserving correspondence with the government, internal communications about performance issues, subcontractor communications, schedules, daily logs, and production reports, QA/QC records, invoices and payment records, and evidence supporting excusable delay or government-caused disruption. If there is any possibility that performance issues relate to government direction, defective specifications, late government-furnished equipment, or changes in scope, those records may become central to later claims or litigation. A contractor’s ability to defeat or convert a default termination often depends on whether it can prove that performance problems were excusable or caused by the government. - Step Four: Immediately Identify the Alleged Failure and the Real Cause (Hours 12–36)
Cure notices often contain broad statements such as failure to meet schedule, failure to maintain staffing, or failure to comply with technical requirements. But contractors should not assume the cure notice accurately captures what is happening. The contractor should immediately conduct a focused internal review to determine what requirement the government claims is being violated, whether the government’s allegations are factually correct, whether the requirement is ambiguous or disputed, whether the issue is within the contractor’s control, and whether the issue stems from government actions or external factors. - Step Five: Develop a Credible Cure Plan (Hours 24–48)
One of the most common contractor mistakes is responding with general assurances rather than a concrete cure plan. A strong cure response typically includes specific corrective actions already taken, a forward-looking schedule showing recovery, staffing and resource commitments, subcontractor remediation steps (if applicable), procurement/logistics solutions for supply chain issues, quality controls being implemented, and a realistic timeline to return to compliance. The cure plan should be detailed enough that the government can see a path forward, but not so detailed that it creates unnecessary admissions or commitments the contractor cannot meet. - Step Six: Avoid Admissions That Can Be Used Later (Hours 24–72)
Cure responses often become key exhibits in later termination decisions, claims, and litigation. Contractors should be extremely careful about the language used. Contractors should avoid admitting fault unnecessarily, conceding that performance is impossible, acknowledging defective performance without qualification, blaming government personnel in a hostile tone, or making broad statements that the government can later cite as evidence of failure.
At the same time, contractors should not be evasive. A vague response can reinforce the government’s conclusion that the contractor is not in control of the work. The goal is to provide a professional, fact-based response that demonstrates control of performance while preserving the contractor’s rights. - Step Seven: Evaluate Whether the Contractor Has Grounds for Excusable Delay or a Change (Hours 36–72)
In many cure-notice situations, performance problems are tied to issues that may constitute excusable delay or constructive change, including late government-furnished property or information, defective specifications, changes in government priorities or technical direction, delays in government approvals or inspections, stop-work orders, differing site conditions (construction), or force majeure or supply chain disruptions beyond the contractor’s control. Contractors should quickly assess whether they have support for a position that the contractor is not in default, the schedule should be extended, or the government has materially contributed to the delay. This assessment will shape both the cure response and any future REA or claim strategy. - Step Eight: Coordinate with Subcontractors and Vendors (Hours 36–72)
If the cure notice relates to subcontractor performance, the contractor should immediately engage subcontractors to obtain written status updates, document the root cause, confirm recovery schedules, and ensure alignment with the prime contractor’s cure plan. Prime contractors should be careful not to simply “pass through” blame to subcontractors without simultaneously demonstrating how the prime will manage and resolve the issue. The government generally views the prime contractor as fully responsible for performance. - Step Nine: Consider Requesting a Meeting with the Contracting Officer (Hours 48–72)
In many cases, a contractor should request a meeting or call with the contracting officer to discuss the cure notice, clarify expectations, and demonstrate seriousness. A short, professional meeting can help narrow misunderstandings, confirm what the government actually needs to see, build rapport and credibility, and prevent termination based on miscommunication.
However, contractors should approach these meetings carefully. Informal discussions can unintentionally create admissions or inconsistent statements. Ideally, contractors should prepare talking points with counsel and ensure key stakeholders are aligned. - Step Ten: Involve Counsel Early
Contractors often wait until termination is imminent to involve legal counsel. That is frequently a mistake. Experienced government contracts counsel can help assess whether the cure notice is procedurally and substantively valid, evaluate whether termination for default would be supportable, craft a response that preserves defenses, position the matter for conversion to a termination for convenience if termination occurs, and begin developing claims or equitable adjustment strategies where appropriate. The cure notice stage is often the contractor’s best opportunity to control the narrative and shape the record.
Common Mistakes Contractors Make After Receiving a Cure Notice
Contractors facing cure notices often make predictable errors, including ignoring the cure notice until close to the deadline, responding emotionally or defensively, providing vague assurances without a measurable plan, failing to preserve evidence of government-caused delay, conceding facts that later undermine defenses, and committing to an unrealistic schedule that the contractor cannot meet. A cure notice response is not just about satisfying the contracting officer — it is about protecting the company’s long-term legal and business interests.
Conclusion
A cure notice is a pivotal moment in contract performance. While it is a serious warning, it is also an opportunity. Contractors who respond quickly, document the facts, and present a credible plan can often avoid default termination and preserve their rights. The first 72 hours are critical. Contractors should treat cure notices as both an operational emergency and a legal event and respond accordingly.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.
Republished with permission. The article, “Received a Cure Notice? What Government Contractors Should Do in the First 72 Hours” was originally published on BuildSmart by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Copyright 2026.