What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Federal cost-reimbursement contract overview is a mess, GAO says

Cost-reimbursed contracts rose to $136 billion in fiscal 2008

Federal agencies spend about $136 billion in cost-reimbursement contracts a year but the reasons they have for selecting that contract type are murky because of missing documentation and incomplete accounting, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

“The complete picture of the government’s use of cost-reimbursement contracts is unclear,” the GAO concluded in the 53-page report published on Oct. 30.

In the last six fiscal years, federal cost-reimbursement contracts rose to $136 billion for 2008, from $120 billion in 2003. As a percentage of all federal contracts, the use of that contract type deceased to 26 percent, from 34 percent, over the period.

However, that trend may be misleading, the GAO warned, because many billions of contracts are uncoded as to type, or the type is coded as missing.

Also, there are signs governmentwide of significant increases in recent years of “combination” contracts, which are contracts that utilize more than a single contract type. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has eliminated the “combination” category for awards starting in fiscal 2010.

Some of these combination contracts use cost-reimbursement features but do not record them as such, the GAO said, and this possibly underestimates the total value of cost-reimbursement awards. The value of federal combination contracts rose to $39 billion in fiscal 2008, from $1.3 billion in 2004. An examination of fiscal 2008 contracts showed that half had at least some cost-reimbursement features, the GAO said.

“Because many of the combination contracts include cost-type obligations, those contracts coded as cost-reimbursement do not portray the full picture of the government’s use of cost-reimbursement contracting,” the GAO report states.

Also, agency contracting officers frequently do not document why they choose cost-reimbursement contracts. A recent review of 92 contracts showed that about 30 percent did not include any documentation on the matter, the GAO said.

“The documentation we did find, for the most part, used boilerplate language; was short, vague, and repetitive; and did not show why a cost-reimbursement contract was selected,” the GAO said.

Furthermore, agencies are not conducting analyses to determine if they can effectively transition to a fixed-price contract type, the GAO wrote.

The GAO requested comments on the draft report from OFPP and from the Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Treasury departments, as well as NASA; the Environmental Protection Agency; National Science Foundation; and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

The agencies mostly agreed with the findings and said they were implementing changes and reminding contracting officers of their responsibilities with regard to cost-reimbursement contracts. The EPA, NSF and service corporation did not respond.

Concerns about cost-reimbursement contracts are not new. The Office of Management and Budget began formulating new guidelines for use of the contract type in April.

About the Author

Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week. Follow her on Twitter: @AliceLipowicz.

Reader comments

Tue, Nov 3, 2009 michael mcmanus wpafb, oh

No one type of contract (FFP, CR or T&M) is inherently better than any other. First, they are not contracts, they are pricing arrangements. Pricing is a function of the requiring activity's ability to define its requirement. Any contractor is more than willing to take a FFP contract but the less wellwe can define the requirement the more cost to cover unanticipated costs will have to be included. Price the effort in line with our abiity to define it. This promotes an equitable sharing of risk.

Tue, Nov 3, 2009 Sonia Schmitt Wash

Industry,trade associations, and the professional universities (aka DAU) are all working hard to get the message out that Fixed Price contracts are a viable alternative to many commodity type or O&M or IT services jobs. Problem is that acquisition folks don't have the manpower to manage these types of contracts or even have the expertise to define the types of SLAs needed for FFP. To them, CR contracts are safer so the Govt can change requirements without needing discipline to keep requirements fixed. On the other hand, flexibility is needed when we support war missions and situations change.why not have series of smaller T&M tasks under IDIQ contracts and reward companies for coming under budget?

Tue, Nov 3, 2009 Peter G. Tuttle, CPCM

IMHO, one main factor which drives contract type is the requirements. Quite a few GAO reports, blogs, seminar speakers, white papers, etc. have all documented the current challenges in the federal requirement generation process. It's tough to use fixed price contracting when the requirements are relatively undefined, overly broad, and extremely general and all-inclusive. When the requesting office "...won't know what it looks like until they see it...," or they don't have the on-board staff to truly determine needs themselves, it becomes increasing more difficult to execute the contracting mission in a cost effective manner. There are legitimate reasons for cost plus contracting, however sometimes abuses occur. For a real shocker - take a look at the rise to prominence of time and material or labor hour contracting - maybe we should look into the use of T&M for the implementation and deployment of mature COTS IT solutions!

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Editorial Webcasts

  • Service Consolidation: How to Avoid Basic Pitfalls of Shared Services Register Now

    This is the first webcast of the Series “Future First: Three Steps to Data Center Transformation”. Plan to attend this webcast to support your agency efforts to design a practical roadmap for consolidation of resources and shared services to meet current and emerging program demands. Learn from those who are doing to help you evaluate services in your current operations that may lend themselves to future shared service arrangements. Read more

Federal Computer Week eNewsletters

  • Subscribe to Newsletters Subscribe

    Federal Computer Week's eNewsletters deliver the latest policy and management news to your inbox.