Our contracting shop awards primarily FFP contracts, mainly for services. It's recently been suggested that some of our contracts might be more appropriate as cost type. Fine, but it's our experience that from a policy standpoint FP, subject to the guidelines in FAR Part 16, are preferred. Can anyone pinpoint DOD/Navy policy in recent years that speaks to the shift away from cost towards fixed-price contracts? I need some documents to support a point paper in favor of FP contracts.

Majority of recent DoD level guidance supports the move away from time and materials and towards fixed price. The policy vault at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ is a great starting point.

Our contracting shop awards primarily FFP contracts, mainly for services. It's recently been suggested that some of our contracts might be more appropriate as cost type. Fine, but it's our experience that from a policy standpoint FP, subject to the guidelines in FAR Part 16, are preferred. Can anyone pinpoint DOD/Navy policy in recent years that speaks to the shift away from cost towards fixed-price contracts? I need some documents to support a point paper in favor of FP contracts.

See: http://www.wipp.org/news/24579/President-O...t--Agencies.htm

President Obama Released a Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Department & Agencies

Thursday, April 02, 2009. This notice can be found in the Federal Register- Vol. 74, No. 43- in the "Presidential Documents" section published on Friday, March 6, 2009.

Go to http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-4938.htm <http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-4938.htm> to view. See http://www.wipp.org/news/24579/President-O...t--Agencies.htm

The contract type should be based on business risk to the contractor/Government and not on which way the political winds are blowing the sand. This should not be confused with the danger risk of their employees as some firms in the war zones try to get you to believe.