Skip to main content
Glama

Generate FAR Part 43 REA, Constructive Change & Eichleay CDA Claim Package

generate_rea_equitable_adjustment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze post-award scope creep, out-of-scope COR technical directions, Government-Furnished Equipment/Information (GFE/GFI) or ATO delays, and stop-work orders under FAR 52.243-1/2/3/4, FAR 52.242-14/15/17, and the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 7101) to generate a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) or Certified CDA Claim package containing a 5-element constructive change proof, a DCAA-auditable Quantum Cost Schedule (direct labor, indirect burden, Eichleay unabsorbed home office overhead, FAR 31.205-33 allowable REA preparation costs, and DFARS 215.404-71 weighted guidelines profit), an Eichleay 3-step standby overhead and CPM schedule extension analysis, and verbatim DFARS 252.243-7002 and CDA 41 U.S.C. 7103 certifications. This is a read-only, stateless, non-destructive post-award contract claims and quantum analysis generator (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; contract_change_and_delay_facts accepts 20 to 45,000 characters, while remedy_clause_and_submission_type and quantum_pricing_methodology calibrate non-adversarial FAR Part 43 REAs vs. interest-bearing CDA claims). Use this tool when quantifying post-award constructive changes, Government delays, or Eichleay standby overhead for a Contracting Officer REA or CDA claim; use analyze_debriefing_bid_protest instead for pre-award or post-award GAO/COFC bid protests under FAR 15.506, or generate_post_award_cpar_rebuttal for FAR 42.1503 CPARS rating rebuttals.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quantum_pricing_methodologyNoQuantum pricing method (Segregated Actual Costs, Modified Total Cost, Jury Verdict Method, Eichleay Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead, and FAR 31.205-33 REA Preparation Cost recovery; defaults to 'Segregated_Actual_Labor_Hours_Plus_Eichleay_Standby_Overhead_And_FAR_31_205_33_Prep_Costs').Segregated_Actual_Labor_Hours_Plus_Eichleay_Standby_Overhead_And_FAR_31_205_33_Prep_Costs
contract_change_and_delay_factsYesChronology of out-of-scope COR/CO technical directions, Government-furnished equipment/information (GFE/GFI) or ATO delays, stop-work orders, standby labor costs, and company overhead figures (20 to 45,000 characters).
remedy_clause_and_submission_typeNoTarget remedy clause and submission posture (e.g., Non-Adversarial FAR Part 43 REA under FAR 52.243-1/2/3/4 & DFARS 252.243-7002 vs. Certified CDA Claim under 41 U.S.C. 7103; defaults to 'FAR_52_243_1_Constructive_Change_And_FAR_52_242_17_Delay_Non_Adversarial_REA').FAR_52_243_1_Constructive_Change_And_FAR_52_242_17_Delay_Non_Adversarial_REA

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoExecution status ('success').
rea_quantum_cost_scheduleNoDCAA-auditable Quantum Cost Breakdown across direct labor, indirect pools, Eichleay standby overhead, REA preparation costs (FAR 31.205-33), and weighted guidelines profit.
rea_entitlement_executive_overviewNoHigh-level REA vs. CDA legal posture, 5-element constructive change proof, and total recommended adjustment.
eichleay_and_delay_schedule_analysisNoEichleay 3-step unabsorbed home office overhead calculation and Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule extension justification.
statutory_certification_and_notice_blockNoVerbatim DFARS 252.243-7002 REA and CDA 41 U.S.C. 7103 certifications, timely notice defense, and SF-30 reservation-of-rights language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so restating that is redundant, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the X-RapidAPI-Key auth requirement, input size bounds, and the consequence of parameter choice (non-adversarial Part 43 REA vs. interest-bearing CDA claim). It does not disclose rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a ~150-word run-on packed with statute jargon and output enumerations, and the safety claims (read-only, stateless, non-destructive) duplicate annotations without earning space. The usage-routing sentence is tight; the body needs splitting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex, high-stakes generator with an output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, auth, input sizing, submission posture, and output composition, and routes to alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that remedy_clause_and_submission_type and quantum_pricing_methodology 'calibrate non-adversarial FAR Part 43 REAs vs. interest-bearing CDA claims' — a consequence not stated in the schema. Character-range repetition is redundant, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (generate) and a precise, unusual resource (REA / certified CDA claim package with 5-element constructive change proof, quantum schedule, Eichleay analysis, certifications) and explicitly contrasts itself with named siblings. An agent can distinguish it from generate_post_award_cpar_rebuttal and analyze_debriefing_bid_protest without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use clause ('when quantifying post-award constructive changes, Government delays, or Eichleay standby overhead') and two explicit exclusions with the condition that selects each sibling (pre/post-award bid protests, CPARS rebuttals). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources