What must be established before issuing a "cure notice" for default?

Before issuing a "cure notice" for default, it is necessary to establish a specific timeframe for the contractor to improve performance. This requirement is rooted in the principles of due process and fairness, which dictate that the contractor must be given an opportunity to rectify their shortcomings before more severe actions, such as default termination, are pursued.

A cure notice serves as a formal communication that informs the contractor of deficiencies in their performance and specifies what is required to address those deficiencies. It is vital to provide a clear timeline within which the contractor is expected to take corrective action, thereby allowing them to demonstrate their ability to meet contractual obligations.

Having such a timeframe not only ensures that the contractor understands the expectations but also assists in objectively assessing whether they have complied with the notice. It effectively balances the interests of the contractor in having a fair chance to remedy issues while protecting the rights of the government or agency involved in the contract.

Establishing a clear definition of default from the contractor, conducting a full review of the overall contract costs, or confirming an extension to the existing contract, while possibly relevant in other contexts, do not directly pertain to the immediate issue of issuing a cure notice. Hence, they are not the foundational requirement necessary prior to taking that step.