48 C.F.R. § 16.301-2
16.301-2 Application.
(a) The contracting officer shall use cost-reimbursement contracts only when—
(1) Circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract (see 7.105); or
(2) Uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract.
(b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for selecting the contract type in the written acquisition plan and ensure that the plan is approved and signed at least one level above the contracting officer (see 7.103(j) and 7.105). See also 16.103(d).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “Count four contends that the Army violated 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-2 (a) (2016) by soliciting a cost-plus contract instead of a fixed price contract, and states: Given the Army’s experience of 15 years with DCGS-A1, and given the existence of commercial items for which pricing…”
United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 14 F. Supp. 3d 982 (S.D. Ohio 2014). “48 C.F.R. § 16.301-2 (a). Pursuant to the EMD Contract, the Air Force paid Lockheed for allowable costs incurred in the development of the F-22 plus a fixed fee of approximately 4% of the costs incurred.”
Fluor Enter., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 461 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 48 C.F.R. §§ 16.301-2 , 16.306(b)(1). Consistent with this requirement, NOAA’s contracting officer made a finding that: An adequate estimate cannot be established because of the nature of the work.”
Palantir Tech. Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 21 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “Count four contends that the Army violated 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-2 (a) (2016) by soliciting a cost-plus contract instead of a fixed price contract, and posits that: *28 Given the Army’s experience of 15 years with DCGS-A1, and given the existence of commercial items for which…”
Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “301-2, 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-2 (1997). Under this type of cost reimbursement contract, as opposed to a fixed-price type contract, the parties identify a target cost, target fee, minimum fee, and maximum fee.”
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.