You are claiming that MOST contracts are NOT cost plus; I am assuming that we are only talking here government aka public contracts aka where one party is the tax payers. I want to make sure to understand your point before arguing against it.
Monopoly and Innovative
- Thread starter HTSS_TR
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
W
Most government contractors (specially defense contractors) are operated with "Cost Plus" contract, whatever the cost is plus a percentage of profit government just paid the bill no question asked.
You wrote. "Most". Please provide proof. Thanks.
+1.
Cost plus is generally reasonable for high risk and R&D type efforts, especially where requirements are likely to change.
For established work, FFP is reasonable, since it should be industrial work with a set resource and labor requirement.
Some vendors do try to push cost plus for established work, but I've also seen FFP r&d contracts to build real stuff.
Keep in mind some cost plus contracts can still have a fixed fee, payable at certain milestones, etc. given that G&A and overhead is so much higher in the private sector than in the government (in R&D at least), I'm sure they are still making out, though I'm sure burden of proof is impossible.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
W
Most government contractors (specially defense contractors) are operated with "Cost Plus" contract, whatever the cost is plus a percentage of profit government just paid the bill no question asked.
You wrote. "Most". Please provide proof. Thanks.
+1.
Cost plus is generally reasonable for high risk and R&D type efforts, especially where requirements are likely to change.
For established work, FFP is reasonable, since it should be industrial work with a set resource and labor requirement.
Some vendors do try to push cost plus for established work, but I've also seen FFP r&d contracts to build real stuff.
Keep in mind some cost plus contracts can still have a fixed fee, payable at certain milestones, etc. given that G&A and overhead is so much higher in the private sector than in the government (in R&D at least), I'm sure they are still making out, though I'm sure burden of proof is impossible.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Please provide proof that MOST .gov contracts awarded on paper are cost plus. I have not seen proof of this. If you prove it to me, then I will gladly eat my words. You made the statement. By scientific and all reasonable discussion rules, you made this contention. Please prove it.
There is no such thing as "Cost Plus" on any contract. As soon as a multi-million contract is signed whatever the amount in the contract it is obsoleted, government will pay whatever the cost at the end.
I asked a simple question: Who pay the cost overrun with 1 contract after another and another. If the contractor is liable for cost overrun then the contract is clearly not the "Cost Plus", if the government paid then it is a fix cost contract or "Cost Plus" contract ?
Show me a proof of a multi-billion defense contract of the last 50 years with cost overrun and contractor was liable and paid for it.
Who paid for cost overrun for these projects: F22, F35, Super carriers ... ?
Why did they budget Big Dig at $2.xx billion then ended up to $8.xx billion ? The $2.xx billion was from the contractor in the contract signed with government representatives. The day that Big Dig started that contract just tossed into a waste basket, government paid every week/month whatever the contractor submitted, and ended much more than it was in the contract.
Do you know how many contractors worked for government in Iraq and Afghanistan wars, never hear of anyone lost any money in any contract with defense dept. Most of them were "Cost-Plus Contracts".
A short read of "No-Bid Contracts" and "Cost-Plus Contracts"
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html
Please provide proof that MOST .gov contracts awarded on paper are cost plus. I have not seen proof of this. If you prove it to me, then I will gladly eat my words. You made the statement. By scientific and all reasonable discussion rules, you made this contention. Please prove it.
There is no such thing as "Cost Plus" on any contract. As soon as a multi-million contract is signed whatever the amount in the contract it is obsoleted, government will pay whatever the cost at the end.
I asked a simple question: Who pay the cost overrun with 1 contract after another and another. If the contractor is liable for cost overrun then the contract is clearly not the "Cost Plus", if the government paid then it is a fix cost contract or "Cost Plus" contract ?
Show me a proof of a multi-billion defense contract of the last 50 years with cost overrun and contractor was liable and paid for it.
Who paid for cost overrun for these projects: F22, F35, Super carriers ... ?
Why did they budget Big Dig at $2.xx billion then ended up to $8.xx billion ? The $2.xx billion was from the contractor in the contract signed with government representatives. The day that Big Dig started that contract just tossed into a waste basket, government paid every week/month whatever the contractor submitted, and ended much more than it was in the contract.
Do you know how many contractors worked for government in Iraq and Afghanistan wars, never hear of anyone lost any money in any contract with defense dept. Most of them were "Cost-Plus Contracts".
A short read of "No-Bid Contracts" and "Cost-Plus Contracts"
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There is no such thing as "Cost Plus" on any contract.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/FARTOCP16.html
There is no such thing as "Cost Plus" on any contract.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/FARTOCP16.html
- Status
Similar threads
