Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
What Are US Defense Contracts?
Definition and Purpose
U.S. defense contracts are legally binding agreements established between the Department of Defense (DoD) and a contractor. These agreements facilitate the procurement of goods, services, research, development, and technology essential for national defense.
The fundamental purpose of these contracts is acquiring the vast array of supplies and services necessary to equip, sustain, and support U.S. military forces. This includes everything from developing advanced weapon systems to providing essential support functions like logistics, maintenance, and IT services.
Defense contracts ensure warfighter readiness, enhance lethality, maintain technological superiority, and support overall national security objectives.
The scale of defense contracting is immense. The U.S. government allocates billions of dollars annually to defense programs, creating substantial opportunities for businesses capable of meeting military requirements.
Agencies like the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) play a crucial role in overseeing these agreements post-award, managing contracts valued collectively in the trillions of dollars and authorizing approximately $1 billion in contractor payments every business day. DCMA’s mission ensures timely delivery of quality products and services at affordable costs, often directly supporting deployed units.
Another key agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), provides auditing and financial advisory services to ensure costs claimed by contractors are allowable and properly documented.
The system also involves international dimensions, such as Foreign Military Sales (FMS), where the U.S. government acts as an intermediary for sales to foreign partners, and Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) agreements designed to promote equipment standardization with allies.
Governing Regulations: The FAR Framework
The cornerstone of U.S. government procurement, including defense contracting, is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR serves as the primary, comprehensive set of rules governing how all executive agencies acquire supplies and services using appropriated funds. It aims to ensure uniformity, transparency, and compliance across federal contracting.
Within this extensive regulation, FAR Part 16, “Types of Contracts”, describes the various contract structures available, prescribes policies for their use, and provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate type for a given acquisition scenario.
Complementing the FAR is the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), which adds layers of regulation specific to the Department of Defense. The DFARS incorporates DoD-unique policies and procedures, including critical cybersecurity requirements for protecting sensitive information (Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI) under clauses like DFARS 252.204-7012, -7019, -7020, and -7021, as well as specific guidance or limitations on the use of certain contract types in defense acquisitions.
Why So Many Types? Balancing Risk and Incentives
The Core Rationale: Allocating Risk
The fundamental reason the FAR defines numerous contract types lies in the need to appropriately allocate various risks between the government and the contractor. The choice of contract type is a strategic decision about who bears the financial consequences if the actual cost or effort required differs from initial expectations.
This allocation exists along a spectrum. At one extreme, Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts place the maximum cost risk squarely on the contractor. The contractor must deliver the specified product or service for the agreed-upon price, regardless of costs incurred. If the contractor performs efficiently and costs are lower than anticipated, their profit increases. If costs overrun, the contractor’s profit erodes, potentially resulting in a loss.
At the other end of the spectrum, Cost-Reimbursement contracts, such as Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), shift the preponderance of cost risk to the government. Under these arrangements, the government agrees to pay the contractor for all allowable and reasonably incurred costs up to a negotiated ceiling, plus a fee. The contractor’s risk related to cost overruns is minimized (though not eliminated, as costs beyond the ceiling or deemed unallowable are not reimbursed), while the government accepts the uncertainty of the final price.
Various Incentive Contracts occupy the middle ground, deliberately structuring risk-sharing arrangements between the two parties.
Contracting professionals primarily consider two categories of risk when making this allocation decision:
Contract Performance Risk: This relates to the uncertainties inherent in the work itself. Factors include the complexity of the requirement, the maturity of the technology involved, the clarity and stability of the specifications or statement of work, the availability of historical cost data for similar efforts, and the contractor’s prior experience.
High performance risk, typical in research and development (R&D) or efforts pushing the state-of-the-art, often leads to contract types where the government assumes more risk. As requirements become well-defined (e.g., for follow-on production), performance risk decreases, allowing risk to shift towards the contractor. Performance risk is generally considered the most significant factor in contract type selection.
Market Risk: This involves uncertainties arising from external economic factors, particularly relevant for contracts spanning multiple years. Fluctuations in labor rates, material costs, or potential shortages can significantly impact contract costs. When market volatility is high, contract types incorporating mechanisms like Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses may be necessary to mitigate this specific risk.
The selection process involves identifying and evaluating these uncertainties and their potential impact on costs to negotiate a contract type that places a reasonable degree of cost responsibility on the contractor. Fundamentally, the choice reflects the level of predictability surrounding the cost and effort needed to meet the government’s requirement.
The Power of Incentives
Beyond risk allocation, contract types are also selected and structured to provide the contractor with the strongest possible motivation for efficient and economical performance. The profit motive is central to this. Incentive contracts explicitly link the amount of profit or fee a contractor can earn to their success in achieving or surpassing predetermined targets related to cost, schedule, and/or technical performance.
These incentives can be structured in various ways:
- Positive Incentives (“Carrots”): Reward contractors with increased profit or fee for performance that exceeds targets (e.g., finishing under target cost, delivering early, achieving higher technical performance).
- Negative Incentives (“Sticks”): Reduce profit or fee if performance falls short of targets (e.g., exceeding target cost).
- Objective Incentives: Use predetermined, measurable criteria and mathematical formulas to calculate adjustments to profit or fee (e.g., FPIF, CPIF contracts). These are generally preferred by DoD when feasible.
- Subjective Incentives: Rely on the government’s judgmental evaluation of contractor performance against stated criteria, typically outlined in an award-fee plan (e.g., CPAF contracts). Used when critical performance aspects cannot be objectively quantified.
While financial rewards are the most direct form of incentive, other factors can also motivate contractor behavior, including the prospect of future contracts (follow-on business), enhanced company reputation or prestige, opportunities for growth, and positive evaluations in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), which influences future contract awards.
The Balancing Act
The ultimate goal in selecting a contract type is to strike a careful balance. The chosen structure should impose a reasonable level of risk on the contractor – not so much as to stifle participation or lead to unrealistic pricing, but enough to encourage prudent management.
Simultaneously, it should incorporate the most effective incentives possible to drive efficiency, cost control, timely delivery, and high-quality technical performance. This negotiation considers the specific acquisition situation, including the risks identified and the potential for meaningful incentives, aiming for an arrangement that is fair to both parties and ultimately delivers the best value to the government and the warfighter.
Achieving this balance requires careful analysis of numerous factors, as detailed later in this guide.
The Fixed-Price Family: Certainty and Contractor Responsibility
Overview
Contracts within the fixed-price family, governed by FAR Subpart 16.2, share the core characteristic that the price is established at the outset and is either firm or, in specific circumstances, adjustable according to predefined terms. A defining feature is that the contractor assumes significant, often maximum, responsibility for the costs incurred during performance.
Due to the price certainty they offer the government, fixed-price contracts are generally preferred when performance and market risks are minimal or can be predicted with reasonable confidence. This typically occurs when requirements are well-defined, such as when acquiring commercial products or services available in the marketplace, or for subsequent production runs of items previously developed. An additional advantage is the relatively low administrative burden they impose on both the government and the contractor compared to cost-reimbursement types.
Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Contracts
Mechanism: An FFP contract establishes a price that is fixed at the time of contract award and is not subject to any adjustment based on the contractor’s actual cost experience during performance. The agreed-upon price is what the government pays upon satisfactory delivery or performance.
Risk/Incentive: This structure places the maximum possible risk and the full responsibility for all performance costs, and the resulting profit or loss, onto the contractor. Consequently, it provides the strongest natural incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform efficiently to maximize profit. Because of the high contractor risk, FFP contracts are sometimes colloquially referred to as “bet the company” contracts.
Typical Uses: FFP is the preferred contract type for acquiring commercial products and services under FAR Part 12. It is also suitable for non-commercial supplies or services when detailed or functional specifications are reasonably definite, allowing fair and reasonable prices to be established at the outset. This is often possible when there is adequate price competition, reliable price comparisons from previous buys, or sufficient cost information to realistically estimate performance costs.
Benefits/Drawbacks: For the government, the primary benefit is price certainty and minimal administrative oversight. For the contractor, FFP offers the potential for higher profits if they can perform below the fixed price and generally involves less burdensome financial record-keeping and audit scrutiny compared to other types. The major drawback for the contractor is bearing the full risk of any cost overruns.
Fixed-Price Incentive (FPI) Contracts
Mechanism: FPI contracts are a type of fixed-price contract where the final profit and price are adjusted based on a pre-negotiated formula that compares the final negotiated costs to a target cost established at the outset. Key elements negotiated include:
- Target Cost: The estimated cost of performance considered most likely.
- Target Profit: The profit the contractor will earn if actual costs equal the target cost.
- Profit Adjustment Formula (Share Line): Defines how the target profit is adjusted based on the difference between final actual cost and target cost. It dictates how cost savings (underruns) or cost overruns are shared between the government and contractor. For example, a 50/50 share line means for every dollar saved below target cost, profit increases by $0.50, and for every dollar overrun, profit decreases by $0.50.
- Price Ceiling: The maximum amount the government will pay the contractor, regardless of actual costs incurred. The contractor absorbs all costs above the ceiling.
The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) suggests that for production contracts, a share line of 50/50 and a ceiling price of 120% of the target cost should be the starting point for negotiations, reflecting an expectation that risks have been mitigated by the production phase.
Types:
- Firm Target (FPIF): All elements (target cost, target profit, share line, ceiling price) are negotiated and finalized before the contract starts. This is used when the parties can confidently establish these targets upfront.
- Successive Targets (FPIS): Initial targets and formula elements are set at award, but there is a plan to definitively “firm up” the targets at a predetermined point during performance when more reliable cost data becomes available. This is used when firm targets aren’t feasible at award but are expected to become so relatively early in the contract.
Risk/Incentive: FPI contracts create a shared risk environment defined by the formula. The contractor is incentivized to control costs because efficiency directly increases profit, while inefficiency penalizes profit. The price ceiling still places ultimate overrun risk above a certain point on the contractor.
Typical Uses: Employed when an FFP contract is not appropriate (due to some cost uncertainty), but conditions allow for establishing reasonably firm targets and the potential benefits of incentivizing cost control are desired. The nature of the work should allow the contractor to assume a meaningful degree of cost responsibility.
Benefits/Drawbacks: The government benefits from motivated cost control and a cap on its financial liability (the ceiling price). The contractor has the opportunity to earn profits above the target level through efficient performance. However, FPI contracts require more complex negotiation and administration than FFP contracts. The contractor must maintain an adequate accounting system capable of tracking costs for final price negotiation and potential audit. The contractor also shares the risk of cost overruns up to the ceiling and bears all risk above it.
Fixed-Price with Economic Price Adjustment (FP-EPA) Contracts
Mechanism: An FP-EPA contract starts with a fixed price but includes a special clause allowing for upward or downward adjustment of that price if specific, predefined economic contingencies occur during the contract’s performance period. These adjustments are typically tied to fluctuations in agreed-upon economic indicators, such as published market prices for specific commodities, labor or material cost indices, or, more rarely, the contractor’s actual experienced costs for specific labor or materials.
Specific FAR clauses like 52.216-2 (for standard supplies based on established prices), 52.216-3 (for semi-standard supplies), and 52.216-4 (based on actual costs of labor/material) govern how these adjustments are calculated and applied.
Risk/Incentive: The primary purpose is to mitigate the risk associated with significant economic volatility that is beyond the contractor’s control, especially during long contract periods. By isolating these specific market risks, the contract protects both the government and the contractor from potentially large, unpredictable cost swings, allowing for a more reasonable base price negotiation. The incentive for general cost control remains, as the base price is fixed apart from the specified adjustments.
Typical Uses: Most appropriate for contracts with extended performance periods where there’s substantial doubt about the stability of market or labor conditions. The contracting officer must determine that such a clause is necessary to protect the parties from significant fluctuations. DFARS 216.203-4 generally limits DoD’s use of EPA clauses to contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000, with exceptions) and with performance periods longer than six months. Contracting officers are advised to use caution, as EPA provisions can lead to significant, unplanned price increases.
Benefits/Drawbacks: For both parties, FP-EPA reduces the gamble associated with long-term economic uncertainty, potentially leading to more realistic initial pricing as contractors don’t need to inflate bids to cover potential extreme market shifts. However, for the government, it introduces an element of price uncertainty and potential budget impact if the specified contingencies trigger significant upward adjustments. These contracts require careful drafting of the EPA clause to clearly define the triggering contingencies, the adjustment mechanism, and any applicable ceilings or floors on the adjustment.
The variations within the Fixed-Price family demonstrate a structured approach to managing risk. FFP represents the ideal scenario for the government when conditions are stable and predictable. As specific types of uncertainty emerge – moderate performance cost uncertainty (addressed by FPI) or significant external market volatility over time (addressed by FP-EPA) – the government introduces tailored mechanisms to share those specific risks. This maintains the core fixed-price discipline while adapting pragmatically to situations where demanding maximum contractor risk via a pure FFP would be unrealistic or counterproductive.
The Cost-Reimbursement Family: Flexibility for Uncertainty
Overview
Cost-reimbursement contracts, governed by FAR Subpart 16.3, represent a fundamentally different approach to risk allocation compared to fixed-price contracts. Their defining characteristic is that the government agrees to pay the contractor for all allowable costs incurred in the performance of the contract, up to a predetermined ceiling known as the “total estimated cost”. The contractor is generally obligated to provide its “best effort” to accomplish the work within this estimated cost.
The primary consequence of this structure is that the government assumes the majority of the financial risk related to the final cost of performance. Since the actual costs are unknown at the time of award, the government accepts the uncertainty regarding the final price tag. The contractor’s cost risk is significantly reduced, as they are reimbursed for legitimate expenses. However, they are still responsible for managing costs prudently and efficiently, and their ability to do so often impacts the fee or incentive they can earn. Costs incurred beyond the established ceiling are generally not reimbursed unless the ceiling is formally increased by the contracting officer.
Cost-reimbursement contracts are deemed necessary and appropriate only under specific circumstances, primarily when the requirements are too uncertain or complex to permit the use of any fixed-price contract type. This level of uncertainty often arises in the context of research and development (R&D), initial feasibility studies, complex system development, testing and demonstration, or the initial production of a new system before designs and processes are stabilized.
Several limitations apply to their use. They are explicitly prohibited for acquiring commercial products or services. Furthermore, their use requires a determination that the contractor’s accounting system is adequate to properly track and allocate costs according to government cost principles (FAR Part 31). Adequate government resources must also be available to administer the contract, including performing necessary surveillance and cost monitoring. A written acquisition plan justifying the use of a cost-reimbursement type must typically be approved at least one level above the contracting officer. Critically, the FAR prohibits the use of the “cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost” system, where the fee would increase simply because costs increase, as this creates a perverse incentive to inflate costs.
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Contracts
Mechanism: Under a CPFF contract, the government reimburses the contractor for allowable incurred costs and pays a fee that is negotiated and fixed in amount at the time of contract award. This fixed fee does not change based on the contractor’s actual cost performance during the contract, although it may be adjusted if the government formally changes the scope of work.
Risk/Incentive: CPFF contracts provide only a minimal incentive for the contractor to control costs, as their fee is predetermined and unaffected by cost overruns or underruns. The government bears almost all the cost risk. From a contractor’s perspective, this is often the least risky contract type regarding cost performance.
Typical Uses: CPFF is suitable for high-uncertainty situations where the conditions for cost-reimbursement are met. Examples include basic research, preliminary exploration or studies where the level of effort required is largely unknown, or for development and test activities where formulating objective incentives (as in CPIF) is not practical. However, CPFF contracts are generally discouraged for major system development once the initial exploratory phases are complete, feasibility is high, and performance objectives are reasonably firm.
Benefits/Drawbacks: The main benefit for the government is the ability to procure necessary work on high-risk projects that contractors might otherwise refuse. For the contractor, it offers minimal cost risk and a guaranteed fee upon successful completion or delivery of the required level of effort. The significant drawback for the government is the weak incentive for cost control, necessitating robust government oversight. While the fee amount is fixed, the contractor’s effective profit rate decreases if costs are higher than initially estimated.
Forms: CPFF contracts can take two forms: Completion, where the contractor must deliver a defined end product or outcome within the estimated cost to receive the full fee, or Term, where the contractor must provide a specified level of effort over a set period. The completion form is preferred when the scope of work can be reasonably defined.
Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) Contracts
Mechanism: A CPIF contract reimburses allowable costs and includes an incentive fee that is adjusted based on a formula comparing the final allowable costs to an initially negotiated target cost. Key negotiated elements are:
- Target Cost: The best estimate of the cost to perform the contract.
- Target Fee: The fee payable if actual costs equal target cost.
- Fee Adjustment Formula (Share Ratio): Defines how the fee is increased or decreased based on the difference between final allowable cost and target cost.
- Minimum and Maximum Fees: Establish the floor and ceiling for the final adjusted fee.
Fee Determination: The formula provides for increases to the target fee (up to the maximum fee) if the contractor manages to perform at a cost below the target cost. Conversely, the fee is decreased (down to the minimum fee) if costs exceed the target cost.
Risk/Incentive: CPIF contracts create a shared risk scenario where both the government and contractor benefit from cost underruns and are penalized by cost overruns, according to the negotiated formula. This structure provides a tangible financial incentive for the contractor to manage costs effectively.
Typical Uses: Suitable for development and testing programs or services where a cost-reimbursement approach is necessary due to uncertainties, but where it is possible to negotiate realistic target costs and a fee adjustment formula that can effectively motivate contractor performance. Technical and schedule performance incentives can also be incorporated. CPIF is generally preferred over CPAF when objective performance targets can be established. DoD studies have indicated that the use of CPIF (and FPIF) contracts correlates strongly with better cost and schedule outcomes on defense programs.
Benefits/Drawbacks: Compared to CPFF, CPIF offers the government a stronger mechanism for incentivizing cost control while still accommodating performance uncertainty. The contractor has the opportunity to increase profitability through efficient management. A key challenge is negotiating targets and a formula that are both reasonably challenging and achievable. Like all cost-reimbursement contracts, CPIF is subject to the limitations in FAR 16.301-3 and requires an adequate contractor accounting system.
Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) Contracts
Mechanism: CPAF contracts reimburse allowable costs and provide a two-part fee:
- Base Fee: An amount (which may be zero) fixed at contract inception. DFARS limits the base fee to a maximum of 3% of the estimated contract cost.
- Award Fee: An additional amount the contractor may earn periodically during performance, based on the government’s subjective assessment of how well the contractor meets or exceeds performance criteria outlined in a formal Award-Fee Plan.
Fee Determination: The amount of award fee earned is determined unilaterally by a designated government Fee Determining Official (FDO), based on evaluations of the contractor’s performance in areas like cost management, schedule adherence, technical achievement, and management effectiveness, as measured against the subjective criteria in the plan. No award fee is earned for performance judged less than satisfactory. Rollover of unearned award fee from one evaluation period to the next is prohibited. DFARS policy generally requires that at least 40% of the total available award fee pool be allocated to the final evaluation period to maintain incentive throughout the contract life, though this can be waived by the Head of the Contracting Activity.
Risk/Incentive: CPAF contracts aim to motivate contractor excellence, particularly in areas where objective measurement is difficult or impractical. The government retains the cost risk. The contractor’s risk lies in performing well enough against the subjective criteria to persuade the government evaluators to grant the award fee.
Typical Uses: Appropriate when a cost-reimbursement contract is necessary, but the nature of the work makes it infeasible to set the objective, formula-based targets required for a CPIF contract. Often used when the government desires flexibility in evaluating performance, considering both the results achieved and the circumstances under which they were achieved. May be used for level-of-effort services. Historically, CPAF use has been scrutinized, as fees awarded were not always clearly linked to positive acquisition outcomes. DoD policy now emphasizes using objective incentives (like CPIF or FPIF) whenever possible.
Benefits/Drawbacks: CPAF offers flexibility to incentivize qualitative aspects of performance. Contractors can potentially earn significant fees for demonstrating overall excellence. However, the subjectivity of the evaluation process can lead to disagreements and requires a significant administrative effort from the government (e.g., establishing evaluation boards, conducting periodic assessments). For the contractor, the fee earned depends on government judgment rather than a predictable formula. CPAF use requires a formal Determination & Findings justifying its selection and a detailed award-fee plan incorporated into the contract.
Cost & Cost-Sharing Contracts
Mechanism: These are the simplest forms of cost-reimbursement contracts. A Cost contract reimburses the contractor for 100% of its allowable costs but provides no fee or profit. A Cost-Sharing contract reimburses the contractor for only an agreed-upon portion of its allowable costs and also provides no fee.
Risk/Incentive: The contractor bears the risk of receiving no profit (in both types) and additionally absorbs a share of the performance costs (in Cost-Sharing). The government bears the risk associated with the costs it agrees to reimburse. There is no direct financial profit incentive for the contractor.
Typical Uses: Cost contracts are often suitable for R&D efforts performed by nonprofit educational institutions or other nonprofit organizations where profit is not a primary driver. Cost-Sharing contracts are used when the contractor anticipates receiving substantial compensating benefits from performing the work (e.g., gaining valuable intellectual property rights, enhancing its market position, developing new capabilities) and is therefore willing to absorb a portion of the costs.
Benefits/Drawbacks: The government benefits from potentially lower overall expenditure due to the absence of fee and, in cost-sharing, the contractor’s contribution. The main drawback is the lack of a profit motive, which might affect contractor efficiency unless other strong motivators are present (as in the case of expected compensating benefits for cost-sharing).
The Cost-Reimbursement family provides essential tools for the DoD to pursue critical objectives fraught with uncertainty. The choice between CPFF, CPIF, and CPAF reflects a deliberate effort to introduce appropriate performance incentives even when the government must bear the primary cost risk. The selection hinges on the ability to define and measure performance objectives: clear, measurable objectives favor CPIF, while subjective or hard-to-quantify objectives may necessitate CPAF, with CPFF reserved for situations where meaningful incentives are impractical. The stringent requirements for adequate accounting systems and government oversight highlight that the flexibility offered by these contract types comes with significant administrative responsibilities.
Comparison of Major Contract Types
To provide a clearer overview, the following table summarizes key characteristics of the major contract types discussed:
| Contract Type | Primary Cost Risk Bearer | Contractor Incentive Focus | Typical Use Case | Government Admin Burden |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) | Contractor | Maximize efficiency to perform below fixed price | Commercial items, well-defined requirements, stable markets | Low |
| Fixed-Price Incentive (FPIF/FPIS) | Shared (per formula) | Meet/exceed cost targets (potentially schedule/tech) | Moderate uncertainty, definable targets, need for cost control incentive | Medium |
| Fixed-Price EPA (FP-EPA) | Contractor (base price); Shared (specific economic factors) | Control costs not subject to EPA | Long-term contracts, unstable economic conditions (labor/material) | Medium |
| Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) | Government | Minimal (fee is fixed); Complete work/deliver effort | High uncertainty R&D, preliminary studies, where incentives impractical | High |
| Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) | Shared (per formula) | Meet/exceed cost targets (potentially schedule/tech) | High uncertainty, but measurable targets feasible for motivation | High |
| Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) | Government | Achieve subjective excellence (cost, schedule, tech, mgmt) | High uncertainty, objective targets infeasible, need for subjective evaluation | Very High |
| Time & Materials (T&M) / Labor-Hour (LH) | Government | Minimal/None (profit tied to hours worked) | Scope/duration cannot be estimated; last resort with strict controls | Very High |
Note: This table provides a simplified comparison. Specific contract details, limitations, and negotiation outcomes can vary significantly.
Other Key Contract Arrangements
Beyond the main Fixed-Price and Cost-Reimbursement families, the FAR provides other contracting structures and arrangements to meet specific needs, often related to flexibility in scope, timing, or the need to start work urgently.
Time-and-Materials (T&M) & Labor-Hour (LH) Contracts
Structure: T&M contracts reimburse contractors based on two components: (1) direct labor hours worked, paid at pre-negotiated fixed hourly rates that encompass wages, overhead, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit; and (2) the actual cost of materials used (with potential handling costs added if applicable and properly accounted for). Labor-Hour (LH) contracts are identical in structure, except the contractor does not provide materials; payment is based solely on the fixed hourly labor rates.
Risk/Incentive: These contract types place significant risk on the government. Because the contractor’s revenue (and potentially profit, embedded in the hourly rates) increases the longer they work, there is no inherent financial incentive to control labor hours or perform work efficiently. They are generally considered among the least preferred contract types by the government.
Typical Uses: T&M and LH contracts are appropriate only when it is impossible at the time of award to accurately estimate the extent or duration of the work required or to anticipate the costs with any reasonable degree of confidence. They might be considered for certain types of commercial services (like equipment repair or IT support) under specific conditions outlined in FAR Part 12. Their use requires rigorous justification.
Management Considerations/Limitations: Due to the lack of cost-control incentives, these contracts demand significant government oversight and surveillance during performance to ensure efficient methods are used and hours charged are appropriate. Crucially, every T&M and LH contract must include a ceiling price that the contractor exceeds at its own risk. Furthermore, before awarding a T&M or LH contract, the contracting officer must prepare a formal Determination and Findings (D&F) document justifying why no other contract type is suitable. This D&F must be signed by the contracting officer, and if the potential contract duration (including options) exceeds three years, it must also be approved by the head of the contracting activity.
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts
Structure: An IDIQ contract establishes a framework for ordering supplies or services over a specified period, but it does not commit the government to purchase any specific quantity beyond a stated minimum. The contract sets forth the general terms, conditions, and potentially the pricing structure (which could be fixed-price or cost-reimbursement per order), and defines a minimum guaranteed quantity (or dollar value) that the government must order and a maximum quantity (or dollar value) that the government may order. Actual procurement occurs only when individual task orders (for services) or delivery orders (for supplies) are placed against the master IDIQ contract.
Purpose: IDIQs provide significant flexibility for situations where the government anticipates recurring needs for certain types of supplies or services but cannot determine the precise quantities or delivery schedules in advance. They allow agencies to maintain minimal inventory and order items or services “just-in-time” as requirements materialize.
Ordering: A key feature, especially for Multiple Award IDIQs (where contracts are awarded to two or more contractors under the same solicitation – the preferred approach), is the concept of “Fair Opportunity.” For orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold placed under multiple award IDIQs, the contracting officer must generally provide all eligible awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for the order.
Procedures vary based on order value but typically involve notifying awardees of the requirement and allowing them to submit proposals or quotes, with selection based on criteria stated in the master contract. This order-level competition serves as a primary control mechanism. Limited statutory exceptions to the fair opportunity requirement exist (e.g., urgency, only one capable awardee, logical follow-on) but must be formally justified. Agencies are required to designate a task and delivery order ombudsman to handle contractor complaints regarding fair opportunity.
Common Uses: IDIQs are widely used across the government for a vast range of requirements, from IT support and professional services to spare parts and construction. They are the foundation for many large-scale Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) managed by agencies like GSA and NIH, and also for GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, which allows agencies to buy commercial goods and services.
Related Types: FAR Subpart 16.5 also covers two other indefinite-delivery types:
- Definite-Quantity Contracts: Specify a definite quantity to be ordered over the contract period, but the delivery schedule is determined via orders.
- Requirements Contracts: Obligate the contractor to fill all actual purchase requirements of designated government activities during the contract period, with quantities determined by orders placed. A realistic estimated total quantity must be stated, but it’s not guaranteed.
Other Arrangements
Letter Contracts: These are preliminary written agreements that authorize a contractor to immediately begin manufacturing supplies or performing services before a final, definitive contract has been negotiated and executed. They are used only in urgent situations where the government’s interest demands an immediate start and negotiating a definitive contract is not possible in time. Letter contracts must contain specific limitations and require “definitization” (conversion to a formal contract type) within a specified timeframe.
Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs) / Basic Agreements (BAs): These are not actual contracts themselves but rather written instruments of understanding between an agency and a contractor. They contain pre-negotiated terms, conditions, and clauses that will apply to future contracts or orders placed between the parties during the agreement’s term. Their purpose is to streamline the process of awarding future contracts or orders by having common terms already established.
These alternative arrangements address specific needs for flexibility or urgency. T&M/LH contracts provide maximum flexibility when the scope of work itself is highly uncertain, but this comes at the cost of weak incentives and requires stringent government oversight and controls (D&F, ceiling price). IDIQs, conversely, manage uncertainty in quantity and timing for generally defined scopes, leveraging competition at the order level (in multiple-award scenarios) as the primary control mechanism. Letter contracts serve as a temporary bridge for urgent needs, while BOAs and BAs act as administrative tools to expedite future contracting actions.
Making the Choice: How Contracting Officers Select the Contract Type
The Decision Process
Selecting the most appropriate contract type is not a perfunctory task; it is a critical decision made during the acquisition planning phase that significantly impacts the cost, schedule, performance outcomes, and overall success of a procurement. It demands careful consideration, sound business judgment, and a thorough understanding of the requirement and the market.
The overarching objective, as stated in FAR 16.103, is to negotiate a contract type and pricing arrangement that results in reasonable contractor risk and provides the contractor with the greatest incentive for efficient and economical performance, thereby serving the government’s best interests. Because the choice involves balancing competing factors and assessing uncertainties, the contracting officer is required to document the rationale for selecting a particular contract type, especially for contracts other than firm-fixed-price. This documentation typically resides in the formal Acquisition Plan or within the contract file itself.
Key Selection Factors
FAR 16.104 provides a detailed list of factors that contracting officers must consider when determining the appropriate contract type. These factors essentially form a framework for assessing the risks and circumstances surrounding a specific acquisition:
Price Competition: When multiple capable sources compete, the competitive pressure typically results in realistic pricing. In such cases, a fixed-price contract (usually FFP) is generally preferred as it leverages market forces to the government’s advantage.
Price Analysis: Even without direct competition, comparing the proposed price to historical prices, commercial prices, or other benchmarks (price analysis) can help determine if a fixed price is reasonable and support the selection of a fixed-price type.
Cost Analysis: If adequate price competition is absent and price analysis alone is insufficient to determine price reasonableness (often the case for non-commercial, complex requirements), then analyzing the contractor’s detailed cost estimate (cost analysis) becomes necessary. This analysis helps identify performance uncertainties and their potential cost impacts, informing the negotiation of a contract type that assigns a reasonable degree of cost responsibility to the contractor.
Type and Complexity of the Requirement: Highly complex requirements, especially those involving R&D, new technology, or specifications unique to the government, inherently involve greater performance uncertainty and risk. This usually leads the government to assume more risk through cost-reimbursement contracts. Conversely, as requirements become better understood, recur over time, or move into stable production, the risk decreases, and the contract type should shift towards fixed-price arrangements.
Urgency of the Requirement: Pressing time constraints might compel the government to accept a greater share of the risk (e.g., using a cost-reimbursement type or a letter contract initially) or to offer specific schedule-based incentives to ensure timely performance.
Period of Performance or Length of Production Run: Contracts extending over long periods, particularly in volatile economic times, face increased market risk (fluctuations in labor/material costs). This may necessitate the use of fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment (FP-EPA) clauses to manage that specific risk.
Contractor’s Technical Capability and Financial Responsibility: The government assesses whether the potential contractor possesses the necessary technical expertise, resources, and financial stability to successfully perform the work and manage the risks associated with the contemplated contract type. A more capable contractor might be able to accept a contract type with higher risk.
Adequacy of Contractor’s Accounting System: This is a critical factor for any contract type other than FFP. Before agreeing to a cost-reimbursement or incentive contract, the contracting officer must ensure the contractor’s accounting system is adequate to accurately accumulate and report cost data in the manner required by the contract and government cost principles. This is essential for determining reimbursable costs and calculating incentive adjustments.
Concurrent Contracts: If the contractor will be performing the proposed work concurrently with other government or commercial contracts, the potential impact of that other work on resources, overhead rates, and overall performance needs to be considered.
Extent and Nature of Proposed Subcontracting: If the prime contractor plans to subcontract a significant portion of the work, the contract type selected for the prime contract should reflect the actual risks retained by the prime. For example, if the prime contractor issues FFP subcontracts for most of the work, their own performance risk is substantially reduced, which might argue against giving the prime a high-risk (from the government’s perspective) cost-reimbursement contract.
Acquisition History: Past experience in acquiring the same or similar items or services provides valuable information. As requirements are repetitively acquired, they typically become better defined, and performance risks decrease, often allowing for a transition to firmer contract types with more contractor risk assumption.
Combining Types
It’s important to recognize that a single contract does not have to use only one contract type. If the entire scope of work cannot be placed under an FFP arrangement, the contracting officer is required to consider whether distinct portions of the work can be priced on an FFP basis.
For example, a contract might include FFP line items for standard hardware deliverables, CPIF line items for associated development services, and perhaps even T&M line items for uncertain field support tasks (provided the T&M requirements are met). This allows for tailoring the risk and incentive structure to different elements within the same overall procurement.
The process of selecting a contract type reveals the contracting officer’s role extends beyond simply executing paperwork; they act as a crucial risk manager for the government. The factors outlined in FAR 16.104 serve as a comprehensive checklist for assessing the various dimensions of uncertainty and risk associated with a procurement. By analyzing competition, complexity, urgency, market conditions, contractor capabilities, and past history, the CO gauges the level and nature of risk. The resulting contract type selection, documented and justified, represents the government’s negotiated strategy for allocating and managing those identified risks, aiming to achieve the required outcome efficiently and effectively.
Authoritative Resources
For further detailed information, the primary official sources governing defense contract types include:
- Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): https://www.acquisition.gov/
- FAR Part 16 (Types of Contracts)
- FAR Subpart 16.1 (Selecting Contract Types)
- FAR Subpart 16.2 (Fixed-Price Contracts)
- FAR Subpart 16.3 (Cost-Reimbursement Contracts)
- FAR Subpart 16.4 (Incentive Contracts)
- FAR Subpart 16.5 (Indefinite-Delivery Contracts)
- FAR Subpart 16.6 (Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts)
- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI): https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html
- Defense Acquisition University (DAU): https://www.dau.edu/ (Provides extensive resources, including Acquipedia articles, guides, and tools on contracting topics).
- DAU Acquipedia – Contract Types
- DAU Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types – Specific guidance often available through DAU’s website or referenced in policy memos.
- DAU Comparison of Major Contract Types Chart – A valuable tool often updated and available on the DAU site.
- General Services Administration (GSA): https://www.gsa.gov/ (Provides information on GSA Schedules and other government-wide contract vehicles).
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
