[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 48, Volume 1]

[Revised as of October 1, 2005]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 48CFR15.404-4]



[Page 277-280]

 

            TITLE 48--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

 

                CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION

 

PART 15_CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION--Table of Contents

 

                      Subpart 15.4_Contract Pricing

 

Sec. 15.404-4  Profit.



    (a) General. This subsection prescribes policies for establishing 

the profit or fee portion of the Government prenegotiation objective in 

price negotiations based on cost analysis.

    (1) Profit or fee prenegotiation objectives do not necessarily 

represent net income to contractors. Rather, they represent that element 

of the potential total remuneration that contractors may receive for 

contract performance over and above allowable costs. This potential 

remuneration element and the Government's estimate of allowable costs to 

be incurred in contract performance together equal the Government's 

total prenegotiation objective. Just as actual costs may vary from 

estimated costs, the contractor's actual realized profit or fee may vary 

from negotiated profit or fee, because of such factors as efficiency of 

performance, incurrence of costs the Government does not recognize as 

allowable, and the contract type.

    (2) It is in the Government's interest to offer contractors 

opportunities for financial rewards sufficient to stimulate efficient 

contract performance, attract the best capabilities of qualified large 

and small business concerns to Government contracts, and maintain a 

viable industrial base.

    (3) Both the Government and contractors should be concerned with 

profit as a motivator of efficient and effective contract performance. 

Negotiations aimed merely at reducing prices



[[Page 278]]



by reducing profit, without proper recognition of the function of 

profit, are not in the Government's interest. Negotiation of extremely 

low profits, use of historical averages, or automatic application of 

predetermined percentages to total estimated costs do not provide proper 

motivation for optimum contract performance.

    (b) Policy. (1) Structured approaches (see paragraph (d) of this 

subsection) for determining profit or fee prenegotiation objectives 

provide a discipline for ensuring that all relevant factors are 

considered. Subject to the authorities in 1.301(c), agencies making 

noncompetitive contract awards over $100,000 totaling $50 million or 

more a year--

    (i) Shall use a structured approach for determining the profit or 

fee objective in those acquisitions that require cost analysis; and

    (ii) May prescribe specific exemptions for situations in which 

mandatory use of a structured approach would be clearly inappropriate.

    (2) Agencies may use another agency's structured approach.

    (c) Contracting officer responsibilities. (1) When the price 

negotiation is not based on cost analysis, contracting officers are not 

required to analyze profit.

    (2) When the price negotiation is based on cost analysis, 

contracting officers in agencies that have a structured approach shall 

use it to analyze profit. When not using a structured approach, 

contracting officers shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this 

subsection in developing profit or fee prenegotiation objectives.

    (3) Contracting officers shall use the Government prenegotiation 

cost objective amounts as the basis for calculating the profit or fee 

prenegotiation objective. Before applying profit or fee factors, the 

contracting officer shall exclude any facilities capital cost of money 

included in the cost objective amounts. If the prospective contractor 

fails to identify or propose facilities capital cost of money in a 

proposal for a contract that will be subject to the cost principles for 

contracts with commercial organizations (see subpart 31.2), facilities 

capital cost of money will not be an allowable cost in any resulting 

contract (see 15.408(i)).

    (4)(i) The contracting officer shall not negotiate a price or fee 

that exceeds the following statutory limitations, imposed by 10 U.S.C. 

2306(d) and 41 U.S.C. 254(b):

    (A) For experimental, developmental, or research work performed 

under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, the fee shall not exceed 15 

percent of the contract's estimated cost, excluding fee.

    (B) For architect-engineer services for public works or utilities, 

the contract price or the estimated cost and fee for production and 

delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications shall not 

exceed 6 percent of the estimated cost of construction of the public 

work or utility, excluding fees.

    (C) For other cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, the fee shall not 

exceed 10 percent of the contract's estimated cost, excluding fee.

    (ii) The contracting officer's signature on the price negotiation 

memorandum or other documentation supporting determination of fair and 

reasonable price documents the contracting officer's determination that 

the statutory price or fee limitations have not been exceeded.

    (5) The contracting officer shall not require any prospective 

contractor to submit breakouts or supporting rationale for its profit or 

fee objective but may consider it, if it is submitted voluntarily.

    (6) If a change or modification calls for essentially the same type 

and mix of work as the basic contract and is of relatively small dollar 

value compared to the total contract value, the contracting officer may 

use the basic contract's profit or fee rate as the prenegotiation 

objective for that change or modification.

    (d) Profit-analysis factors--(1) Common factors. Unless it is 

clearly inappropriate or not applicable, each factor outlined in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this subsection shall be considered 

by agencies in developing their structured approaches and by contracting 

officers in analyzing profit, whether or not using a structured 

approach.

    (i) Contractor effort. This factor measures the complexity of the 

work and



[[Page 279]]



the resources required of the prospective contractor for contract 

performance. Greater profit opportunity should be provided under 

contracts requiring a high degree of professional and managerial skill 

and to prospective contractors whose skills, facilities, and technical 

assets can be expected to lead to efficient and economical contract 

performance. The subfactors in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) (A) through (D) of 

this subsection shall be considered in determining contractor effort, 

but they may be modified in specific situations to accommodate 

differences in the categories used by prospective contractors for 

listing costs--

    (A) Material acquisition. This subfactor measures the managerial and 

technical effort needed to obtain the required purchased parts and 

material, subcontracted items, and special tooling. Considerations 

include the complexity of the items required, the number of purchase 

orders and subcontracts to be awarded and administered, whether 

established sources are available or new or second sources must be 

developed, and whether material will be obtained through routine 

purchase orders or through complex subcontracts requiring detailed 

specifications. Profit consideration should correspond to the managerial 

and technical effort involved.

    (B) Conversion direct labor. This subfactor measures the 

contribution of direct engineering, manufacturing, and other labor to 

converting the raw materials, data, and subcontracted items into the 

contract items. Considerations include the diversity of engineering, 

scientific, and manufacturing labor skills required and the amount and 

quality of supervision and coordination needed to perform the contract 

task.

    (C) Conversion-related indirect costs. This subfactor measures how 

much the indirect costs contribute to contract performance. The labor 

elements in the allocable indirect costs should be given the profit 

consideration they would receive if treated as direct labor. The other 

elements of indirect costs should be evaluated to determine whether they 

merit only limited profit consideration because of their routine nature, 

or are elements that contribute significantly to the proposed contract.

    (D) General management. This subfactor measures the prospective 

contractor's other indirect costs and general and administrative (G&A) 

expense, their composition, and how much they contribute to contract 

performance. Considerations include how labor in the overhead pools 

would be treated if it were direct labor, whether elements within the 

pools are routine expenses or instead are elements that contribute 

significantly to the proposed contract, and whether the elements require 

routine as opposed to unusual managerial effort and attention.

    (ii) Contract cost risk. (A) This factor measures the degree of cost 

responsibility and associated risk that the prospective contractor will 

assume as a result of the contract type contemplated and considering the 

reliability of the cost estimate in relation to the complexity and 

duration of the contract task. Determination of contract type should be 

closely related to the risks involved in timely, cost-effective, and 

efficient performance. This factor should compensate contractors 

proportionately for assuming greater cost risks.

    (B) The contractor assumes the greatest cost risk in a closely 

priced firm-fixed-price contract under which it agrees to perform a 

complex undertaking on time and at a predetermined price. Some firm-

fixed-price contracts may entail substantially less cost risk than 

others because, for example, the contract task is less complex or many 

of the contractor's costs are known at the time of price agreement, in 

which case the risk factor should be reduced accordingly. The contractor 

assumes the least cost risk in a cost-plus-fixed-fee level-of-effort 

contract, under which it is reimbursed those costs determined to be 

allocable and allowable, plus the fixed fee.

    (C) In evaluating assumption of cost risk, contracting officers 

shall, except in unusual circumstances, treat time-and-materials, labor-

hour, and firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contracts as cost-plus-

fixed-fee contracts.

    (iii) Federal socioeconomic programs. This factor measures the 

degree of support given by the prospective contractor to Federal 

socioeconomic programs, such as those involving small



[[Page 280]]



business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by 

socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, women-owned small 

business concerns, veteran-owned, HUBZone, service-disabled veteran-

owned small business concerns, handicapped sheltered workshops, and 

energy conservation. Greater profit opportunity should be provided 

contractors that have displayed unusual initiative in these programs.

    (iv) Capital investments. This factor takes into account the 

contribution of contractor investments to efficient and economical 

contract performance.

    (v) Cost-control and other past accomplishments. This factor allows 

additional profit opportunities to a prospective contractor that has 

previously demonstrated its ability to perform similar tasks effectively 

and economically. In addition, consideration should be given to measures 

taken by the prospective contractor that result in productivity 

improvements, and other cost-reduction accomplishments that will benefit 

the Government in follow-on contracts.

    (vi) Independent development. Under this factor, the contractor may 

be provided additional profit opportunities in recognition of 

independent development efforts relevant to the contract end item 

without Government assistance. The contracting officer should consider 

whether the development cost was recovered directly or indirectly from 

Government sources.

    (2) Additional factors. In order to foster achievement of program 

objectives, each agency may include additional factors in its structured 

approach or take them into account in the profit analysis of individual 

contract actions.



[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 6120, Feb. 8, 2002; 70 

FR 14954, Mar. 23, 2005]