Home
Solutions
Products
Pricing
Resources
Request Demo
Start Free
Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo
StateStorm

Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 376 new people
  • 171 new organizations
  • 408 new photos
  • 1234 job history records for people in our database
  • 653 education records for people in our database
  • 1467 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 3 new people through the revolving door
  • 109 new policy reports
  • 43 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 629 new personal financial disclosures
  • 15148 new press releases
  • 11 new town halls
  • 25 new hearings

Caught Our Eye Rss

» More from Caught Our Eye
» More from our DevBlog

Incentive Contracts: Examination of Fixed-Price Incentive Contracts

  Premium   Download PDF Now (24 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date Nov. 3, 1987
Report No. NSIAD-88-36BR
Subject
Summary:

In response to a congressional request, GAO examined the federal government's practice of using fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts to share cost risks with its contractors, to determine its cost-effectiveness.

GAO reviewed 573 FPI contracts at 6 Department of Defense (DOD) purchasing offices and found that: (1) DOD had given final pricing to 62 contracts; (2) of the 62 contracts, 2 achieved the target price, 33 overran the target price, and 27 underran the target price; and (3) none of the 6 purchasing offices exceeded their cumulative target price by more than 1.76 percent. GAO also found that: (1) there was no relationship between the cost-sharing ratio and achievement of a contract's target price; (2) although the FPI contracts did not always achieve the desired goal, they enabled the government to share financial risks with contractors and limited its financial liability; (2) government contractors often refuse to accept firm-fixed-price contracts because of the associated risks; and (3) the government would have to use cost-type contracts if it could not partially share risk through FPI contracts.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports

HomeAbout Us Contact UsPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseJoin Us
© LegiStorm
LegiStorm
2101 L St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 360-4172 / congress@legistorm.com