Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Pentagon Acquisition Chief Warns About Misuse of 'Fixed Price' Contracts
Pentagon Acquisition Chief Warns About Misuse of 'Fixed Price' Contracts
By Sandra I. Erwin

Pentagon buyers have been under pressure of late to stop the flow of red ink in Defense Department weapons systems.

One way to keep vendors from running up the tab is to use fixed-price contracts, particularly in purchases of equipment whose cost and complexity is predictable. But fixed-price contracts come in different varieties, and knowing what specific contract type makes the most sense for the government can be a challenge for Pentagon buyers, warns Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall.

Kendall's latest policy guidance tells procurement officials to use "appropriate" contract types. "Unfortunately, sorting this out is not always easy," Kendall writes in the March-April 2013 issue of the Defense Acquisition University journal.

Kendall's rulebook, known as Better Buying Power, has been interpreted as a mandate to avoid "cost-plus" arrangements where the government agrees upfront to pay a vendor to design a product before it has determined its final price tag.

In the article, titled, "Use of Fixed-Price Incentive Firm Contracts in Development and Production," Kendall cautions buyers that there is no simple benchmark to select a contract type. "The choice of appropriate contract types is very 'situationally' dependent," he says.

Kendall suggests that even though fixed-price contracts do relieve the government from taking on all the risk in a program, if not used properly, such deals could backfire and lead to unneeded court battles.

"Fixed firm price development tends to create situations where neither the government nor the contractor has the flexibility needed to make adjustments as they learn more about what is feasible and affordable as well as what needs to be done to achieve a design that meets requirements," he says.

A fixed-price contract is basically a government “hands off” contract, he adds. "While we can get reports and track progress, we have very little flexibility to respond to cases where the contract requirements may be particularly difficult to achieve."

Shifting the risk to contractors should not be seen as the antidote to the Defense Department's poor track record in predicting costs, Kendall notes. The average EMD (engineering, manufacturing, development) program for a major defense acquisition over the last 20 years has overrun by nearly 30 percent. "Industry can only bear so much of that risk," he says. "It is unrealistic to believe contractors will simply accept large losses. They will not. ... Industry has a finite capacity to absorb that risk and knows how to hire lawyers to help it avoid large losses."

In most cases, says Kendall, there needs to be a "fair sharing" of the risk and rewards of performance. "For good reasons, I am conservative about the use of fixed-price development, but it is appropriate in some cases."

Kendall’s admonition follows an avalanche of complaints by defense industry about policies that treat contractors as convenient scapegoats for the Pentagon weapons programs’ massive cost overruns.

“The government rarely knows what it wants with sufficient specificity to support reasonable fixed prices for evolving, complex or sophisticated products to be delivered years later,” charges John Chierichella, a government contracting attorney at the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

He predicts the “latest federal fascination with fixed prices will end like the others — badly — with delayed fielding of the products, contractors deeply damaged by inadequate cash flow, increased claims and litigation, and focused “bail outs” in which the government decides which of the wounded contractors deserves triage.”

A shift toward fixed-price contract began during the second half of President Obama's first term. Pentagon officials had become increasingly frustrated as too many programs got started and “we find out later on that they were unaffordable,” Kendall says in a February 2012 speech. He cites fixed-price contracting as one of several contracting trends that are embraced and rejected in cycles. In the past two decades, he says, “We have been for-or-against for-or-against fixed price contracting four or five times."

Photo Credit: Defense Dept.


Re: Pentagon Acquisition Chief Warns About Misuse of 'Fixed Price' Contracts

I agree that fixed-price contracts are not good for complex developments.  In the 80s, we were forced to use Fixed Price Contracts for complex development programs which resulted in elevated contract prices to account for the added risk, and busted baselines.  As said in the article, we have been back and forth on this issue.  Instead of following mandates to do some standard approach to something, Program Managers should be held responsible for what type of contract is used rather than mandating across-the-board contract type for a group of similar programs.  Further, the article seems to dipect contractors as poor soles that have no responsibility for their overruns.  They bid on these efforts and win these programs based on their proposals that say they can do something.  Regardless of the type of contract used, contractors should be responsible for the programs they win.  If they fail and run out of resources, then they should be done.
James C. Bash at 3/1/2013 12:58 PM

Re: Pentagon Acquisition Chief Warns About Misuse of 'Fixed Price' Contracts

Much of the cost overruns in many military products is buried in the software.  Software is an ideal burial ground since very few understand it.  However, there are many techniques to manage software costs.  A big one is Software Frameworks, of which there are many excellent examples in the commercial world:
Eclipse IDE; Ruby on Rails; .net technology; Enterprise Java Beans.
ESA and Asian Aerospace companies are jumping on Software Frameworks and US defense  industry will have to follow suit to remain competitive.
Milton K Benjamin SciD. at 3/9/2013 6:57 AM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share