by DerekHuether

Psych!

Unfortunately, there is no ONE best type of contract because the risk the vendor and customer share is determined by the contract type.  The best thing you can do is understand who bares the risks or benefits of each.  Being I don’t know if you are a vendor, a customer, or a project manager, this objective description of each contract type should help shed some light on the subject.

There are three categories of contracts: Fixed-Price, Cost-Reimbursable, and Time and Material (T&M).

Fixed-Price is a contract category involving setting a fixed total price for a defined scope of work to be provided.  Fixed-price may also incorporate financial incentives for achieving or exceeding selected project objectives, such as schedule delivery dates, cost and technical performance, or anything that can be quantified and subsequently measured.   Vendors under fixed-price contracts are legally obligated to complete these contracts, with possible financial damages if they do not.  Under the fixed-price arrangement, vendors must precisely specify the products or services being offered.  Changes in scope can be accommodated, but generally at an increase in contact price.  The three common types of fixed-price contracts are Firm Fixed Price Contracts (FFP), Fixed Price Incentive Fee Contracts (FPIF), and Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment Contracts (FP-EPA). [risk is on the vendor]

Cost-reimbursable is a contract category involving payments (cost reimbursements) to the vendor for all legitimate actual costs incurred for completed work, plus a fee representing vendor profit.  Cost-reimbursable contracts may also include financial incentive clauses whenever the seller exceeds, or falls below, defined objectives such as costs, schedule, or technical performance targets.  Why would anyone ever use this contract vehicle?  Assume the customer doesn’t know what they want.  By absolving the vendor of risk, they may actually get something delivered.  Three of the more common types of cost-reimbursable contracts in use are Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), and Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF). [risk is on the customer]

Time and Materials (T&M) is a hybrid type of contractual arrangement that contains aspects of both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contracts.  They are often used for staff changes, acquisition of experts, and any outside support when a precise statement of work cannot be quickly prescribed. [blended risk]

So there you have it, the three categories of contracts.  Some people make it their job to know these inside and out.  I wouldn’t recommend getting too far into the weeds unless this topic really interests you.  If there is one takeaway from this post, I would say remember which party is at risk and which party will benefit. It’s not fun being on the short end of that stick.

Image courtesy of: Shutterstock

  • One important clarification ... the "risk" mentioned in the main article as well as in the comments is actually COST risk. Technical risk and schedule risk are not addressed except to the extent that they affect cost.

    For any of you involved in AEC, "fixed price" is the same as "lump sum."

    And a couple of other items:
    -- Usually, the requirement to spell out precisely what is wanted on a FFP contract rests with the buyer, not the seller. If the seller defines the scope, the buyer will have difficulty comparing proposals.
    -- ANY scope change under a fixed price contract means an adjustment to the contract price unless the seller chooses to accept it at no cost.
  • Maybe I'm getting too far into the weeds but I have a couple of remarks:

    1. Risk is always blended. The focus may be on one side or the other but that's never black or white kind of situation. The often case with fixed price contracts is that vendor rejects to do anything which isn't clearly specified in specifications, not even a tiny thing. Given that creating specification which is detailed enough and describes exactly what customer want is practically impossible the client will always need customizations. Then, depending on vendor's approach some risk goes back to the customer.

    2. Time and Material contracts are more risky for the client. Both sides can finish work anytime, but as far as vendor can get another deal that's not a problem. On the other have client is left with unfinished project which is really hard to be overtaken by another vendor so if the clash happens usually it ends up with starting the thing from a scratch.
  • Pawel,
    What I love about your comments is you never give anyone a free pass. You are correct, risks and opportunities are always going to be present. We can't deny they exist. But, I wrote these definitions and viewpoints to be as non-subjective as possible. I could have written about exceptions for each, but I didn't want to do that in this post. Perhaps I should have included a most of the time at the end of each definition.

    Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
  • <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=theprojmanast-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&md=10FE9736YVPPT7A0FBG2&asins=0808016113" style="float:right; width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>Hi Derek,
    You missed a key variable in this equation- Scope Definition. While every statement you made was true, the reason behind which contract type is the best or most appropriate way to allocate risks is defined by SCOPE DEFINITION.

    Greg Garrett, "World Class Contracting", ESI, has put together an excellent graphic which shows the relationship very clearly.

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta
    http://www.build-project-management-competency.com
  • Paul,
    I would agree with you that scope definition (or lack of) is a key contributing factor in identifying which contract type would best benefit the reader. But, this post was just a very high level description of contract types. I wanted to tease the readers into wanting to dig a little deeper, if they wanted and not bore others to tears. There are several key contributing factors for each contract type, making them favorable or unfavorable to different parties. If I listed them all, including scope, I would be getting into the weeds and probably tripling the length of the post.

    The book you're reviewing has had very favorable reviews and has been used as college study material. If Josh sees the value, perhaps he could add a link to it on Amazon?

    Thank you so much for feedback.

    Regards,
    Derek
  • I added an Amazon widget into Dr. PDG's post per your suggestion Derek.

    I'm interested in the book now too. Sounds like a good thing to have on the bookshelf for reference too.
  • Centrino
    Hello Josh, I can't see the widget; it is a link to Amazon ?
blog comments powered by Disqus
http://pmstudent.com/wp-content/themes/selecta