C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS › Subpart 16.1—Selecting Contract Types

48 C.F.R. § 16.101

16.101 General.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A wide selection of contract types is available to the Government and contractors in order to provide needed flexibility in acquiring the large variety and volume of supplies and services required by agencies. Contract types vary according to (1) the degree and timing of the responsibility assumed by the contractor for the costs of performance and (2) the amount and nature of the profit incentive offered to the contractor for achieving or exceeding specified standards or goals.

(b) The contract types are grouped into two broad categories: fixed-price contracts (see subpart 16.2) and cost-reimbursement contracts (see subpart 16.3). The specific contract types range from firm-fixed-price, in which the contractor has full responsibility for the performance costs and resulting profit (or loss), to cost-plus-fixed-fee, in which the contractor has minimal responsibility for the performance costs and the negotiated fee (profit) is fixed. In between are the various incentive contracts (see subpart 16.4), in which the contractor's responsibility for the performance costs and the profit or fee incentives offered are tailored to the uncertainties involved in contract performance.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. United States, 130 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. United States, 130 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1997). “” 48 C.F.R. § 16.101 (b) (1996). Within these broad categories there are five specific fixed-price type contracts and six specific cost-reimbursement type contracts.”
United States of Am. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2021). “See 48 C.F.R. § 16.101 (b). Fixed-price contracts provide for a firm price or, in appropriate cases, an adjustable price.”
United States v. Roy Williams, 402 F. App'x 861 (5th Cir. 2010). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 16.101 (b), 16.201. However, he simply presumes that the contracts are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations *864 without presenting any evidence that the contracts are government acquisition contracts.”
United States v. Roy Williams (5th Cir. 2011). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 16.101 (b), 16.201. However, he simply presumes that the contracts are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations without presenting any evidence that the contracts are government acquisition contracts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.