48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1
16.202-1 Description.
A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties. The contracting officer may use a firm-fixed-price contract in conjunction with an award-fee incentive (see 16.404) and performance or delivery incentives (see 16.402-2 and 16.402-3) when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost. The contract type remains firm-fixed-price when used with these incentives.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States
Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States (2016)
“” See 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 . Further, the contract incorporated several standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions, such as a Changes clause, FAR 52.”
Affiliated Construction Group, Inc. v. United States (2014)
“The government contended that this claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because ACG entered into a firm-fixed-price contract for design/build services, and thus under 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 , plaintiff assumed the “maximum risk”…”
John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy v. Cessna Aircraft Company (1996)
“48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 (1995). 5 According to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), fixed-price contracts are “suitable for acquiring commercial items .”
Teledyne, Inc. v. United States (2001)
“See 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 (“A firm-fixed-priee contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract.”
Serco Inc. v. United States (2008)
“See 48 C.F.R. §§ 16.202-1 , 16.301-1. Accordingly, while a contractor’s ability to control costs is critically important to the government in a cost-reimbursement contract, it is of little moment in a firm, fixed-price contract.”
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Lucent Technologies Inc., United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant (1999)
“”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 ("A firm fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract.”
U.S. ex rel. USN4U, LLC v. Wolf Creek Fed. Servs., Inc. (2022)
“” 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 . Once the final price is agreed upon, Wolf Creek can begin No.”
Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States (2017)
“The FAR addresses “Firm-Fixed-Price Contracts” at 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 , and provides: A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract.”
Information System & Networks Corp. v. United States (2005)
“” 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 . “This contract type places upon the contractor .”
L.W. Matteson, Inc. v. United States (2004)
“See 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 . On this contract, however, Matte-son claims the government invited contractors to “come up with other options” to the pre-selected disposal areas, which “change[d] the contractual relationship.”
Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. v. United States (2014)
“” J.A. 320, 292. Indeed, the solicitation clearly states that each task order issued for the performance of work is a “Firm Fixed-Price” contract.”
PHT Supply Corp. v. United States (2006)
“at 27 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 16.202-1 (2006)). Moreover, Airtronic contends that, even if it could request a reformation, an exercise of that right would provide no relief to PHT.”
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.