King, David R.

English

epublications@Marquette

Marquette Universitye-Publications@MarquetteManagement Faculty Research and Publications Management, Department of1-1-2007Making the Contract Type Fit the ProgramDavid R. KingMarquette UniversityPublished version. Defense AT&L Magazine, Volume 36, No. 1 ( January-February 2007), Permalink.© 2007 Defense Acquisition University. Used with permission.From Our Readers Making the Contract Type Fit the Program Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the vice chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently proposed limiting the Pentagon to fixed-price contracts for weapon programs. In considering this proposal, it is worth reviewing available contract types and past policy in applying contract types. First, the two main contract types are fixed-price and cost-plus. Fixed-price contracts place greater risk on defense contractors to deliver a weapon system at a quoted cost. If uncertainty exists, contractor propos-als can be expected to have higher prices to com-pensate for any added risk. Cost-plus contracts allow the government and contractor to share risk by giv-ing the government the option to continue funding a weapon program above a contractor's initial estimate. Second, past reform initiatives appear to follow the swings of a pendulum. In the mid-1960s, for exam-ple, the objective of "Total Procurement" was to trans-fer more risk to defense contractors by competitively bidding fixed-price contracts over both development and production phases of a weapon system. The ex-pected advantages included avoiding "low-ball" bid-ding of development contracts, and obtaining pro-duction price commitments from contractors. The focus on awarding more fixed-price contracts resulted in cost-plus contracts going from the most common contract type to less than 5 percent of Air Force pro-curement dollars by 1966, according to G. Brunner and G. Hall in a 1968 publication "Air Force Procure-ment Practices 1964-1966." Problems with Total Pro-curement resulted in a July 1969 memorandum by then Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard ad-vocating cost-plus contracts for development and fixed-price contracts for production of weapon sys-tems. This gUidance appears to have remained con-sistent until 1980, when the emphasis shifted again toward fixed-price contracts for all phases of a weapon program. The use of a fixed-price contract proved to be a mistake on the now successful Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile development contract. Awarded in 1981, the AMRAAM contract experienced significant cost growth and schedule delays that led to a complete restructuring of the program by 1985. Current practice is consistent with then Deputy Sec-retary of Defense Frank Carlucci's reform initiative from 1981 that advocated the use of appropriate con-tract types. In general, fixed-price contracts are more appropri-ate for production contracts where costs are either known or easily predicted, and cost-plus contracts are more appropriate in situations-such as devel-opment-where costs are uncertain. Over time, safe-guards have also been established to avoid defense contractor misuse of cost-plus contracts. For exam-ple, government personnel with the Defense Contract Management Agency provide on-site inspections of defense contractor facilities and work, and Defense Contract Audit Agency personnel perform audits of contract costs to ensure they are appropriate. In light of available safeguards, a review of past re-form efforts suggests that mandating a single con-tract type is not better than matching the unique cir-cumstances of a weapon program with an appropriate contract type. David R. King, Ph.D. Dayton, Ohio 47 Defense AT&L: January-February 2007 

Making the Contract Type Fit the Program

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&amp;context=mgmt_fac

Making the Contract Type Fit the Program

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette