Stop-Work Means Stop Work (…Until It Doesn’t): Lessons From Wolverine Tube

Key Takeaways

• Clause cited governs stop‑work order's duration.
• FAR 52.242‑15 expires automatically after 90 days.
• Contractors must track expiration and resume cautiously.
• Reasonableness and allocability still determine cost allowability.

Summary

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ruled in Wolverine Tube, Inc. that the Air Force’s stop‑work order, issued under FAR 52.242‑15, automatically expired after its 90‑day limit because the government never cancelled or extended it. The Board rejected the Air Force’s attempt to recharacterize the order under FAR 52.233‑3, emphasizing that the clause actually cited controls the outcome. While Wolverine won on the legal effect of the order, the Board left most cost disputes open, granting summary judgment only on profit and settlement‑preparation fees. The decision clarifies how protest‑related stop‑work orders are applied and how subsequent costs are evaluated.

Pulse Analysis

Stop‑work orders are a routine tool in federal contracting, but the clause cited in the order determines its legal effect. In the Wolverine Tube case, the ASBCA underscored that FAR 52.242‑15 imposes a strict 90‑day limit unless the contracting officer actively cancels or extends the order. By contrast, FAR 52.233‑3, often used for protest‑related stoppages, lacks an automatic expiry, meaning costs could remain barred indefinitely. The Board’s refusal to rewrite the Air Force’s order reinforces the principle that agencies must be precise when invoking contract clauses, as any misstep can alter the contractor’s rights and obligations.

For contractors, the decision translates into actionable risk‑mitigation steps. First, verify the exact FAR provision referenced in any stop‑work notice; the cited clause dictates whether the order will lapse on its own or persist until contract termination. Second, maintain a calendar of expiration dates—especially the 90‑day window under FAR 52.242‑15—and seek written confirmation before resuming work. Even after an order expires, costs incurred must still satisfy FAR Part 31’s reasonableness and allocability standards, making meticulous documentation of unavoidable expenses essential. The case also highlights that first‑article risk clauses continue to shift material‑purchase risk to contractors, affecting settlement calculations in termination‑for‑convenience scenarios.

Industry‑wide, Wolverine Tube signals a shift toward greater contractual certainty and accountability. Agencies can no longer rely on post‑hoc reinterpretations of stop‑work language to shield themselves from cost exposure; they must either act within the clause’s timeframe or accept that contractors may lawfully resume performance. This heightened clarity benefits both sides by reducing disputes over cost recovery and encouraging proactive communication. Contractors, meanwhile, should embed clause‑review checkpoints into their contract administration processes and allocate resources for real‑time cost tracking, ensuring that any post‑stop‑work expenditures can be defended as reasonable, allocable, and directly tied to the contract’s continued performance.