[HN Gopher] Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a "pl... ___________________________________________________________________ Nelson testifies cost-plus contracts have been a "plague" on NASA Author : aml183 Score : 113 points Date : 2022-05-04 17:06 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (payloadspace.com) (TXT) w3m dump (payloadspace.com) | mulmen wrote: | What happens when a fixed-price project hits a delay? Presumably | the bidder eats the loss at first but what happens when they run | out of appetite? Does the project just... end? | vkou wrote: | > Presumably the bidder eats the loss at first but what happens | when they run out of appetite? Does the project just... end? | | That's why these contracts go to large companies, as opposed to | small ones. | | If a small company loses interest in finishing a fixed-cost | project, they might go bankrupt, and leave the government up | crap creek without a paddle. | | If a big company loses interest, they'll keep struggling along, | because they can get hit with the stick of 'you'll never get | another contract from us ever again.' | uberman wrote: | Yes, the project just ends and it will end sooner than expected | under fixed bidding as the government will almost certainly | demand non-contracted changes mid-project that in my experience | can have dramatic costs. | | Most government projects are structured and paid for in phases | and there is no assurance that phase 2 starts at the end of | phase 1. No approval to proceed means the project just "ends | when it ends". | stonemetal12 wrote: | They get a bad CPAR (Contractor Performance Assessment Rating) | and are banned from government contracting in the future. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Yes. https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/01/22/boeing-withdraws- | from-... | badwolf wrote: | More current fixed-price example, also from boeing: | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/27/boeing-lost-billion- | dollars-... | timdiggerm wrote: | You mean if they don't deliver the product after they signed a | contract? | quxpar wrote: | Yes, and the government learns a lesson. | smnrchrds wrote: | I don't know what would happen initially, but eventually, the | contractors wise up and start baking the risk of delays into | their quotes. | dr_orpheus wrote: | Yes, this definitely happens and is why in some situations | people think fixed price contracts can end up costing more. | | Contractors will be extreme sticklers about their | requirements on a project. So that if anything starts look | off-plan or may impact something like a schedule delay they | will say "nope, that's outside of our scope of work we need | an extension/additional funding". | Goronmon wrote: | _Contractors will be extreme sticklers about their | requirements on a project. So that if anything starts look | off-plan or may impact something like a schedule delay they | will say "nope, that's outside of our scope of work we need | an extension/additional funding". _ | | Yup, change orders are how deal with these issues when it | comes to fixed-costs contacts. For better or worse, its | almost impossible for a project to be perfectly specced out | ahead of time. And anything that even comes close to | looking like it conflicts with the spec becomes a change | order. | sidewndr46 wrote: | According to the article, this is how money is made on | cost-plus contracts | | > About that "plague": NASA has traditionally procured | technology from industry using cost-plus contracts, which | allow contractors to charge the agency extra for | extensions and changes to their plans. | | From my experience, the author of that article has no | idea what they are talking about. | dr_orpheus wrote: | Theoretically the bidder eats the loss and assumes all of the | risk in a fixed-price contract. Ending projects certainly is a | possibility, but there are typically termination penalties | within the contracts as well. | | If there is an unanticipated issue contractors will often try | and get a contract modification because they consider it new | scope of work or something like that. | golem14 wrote: | Here's how simple me thinks about it: Cost-plus is just a lazy | version of fixed price, where instead of accountants looking at | details before new funding is released, there's automatic | approval of overruns. | teruakohatu wrote: | > there's automatic approval of overruns. | | That is not quite correct. Cost-plus specifies how charges | are priced, it does not specify budgets. | | I could sell you pencils at cost-plus. How many pencils you | buy is up to you, not I. | fergbrain wrote: | They eat the cost: https://simpleflying.com/boeing-ceo-air- | force-1-deal-mistake... | swarnie wrote: | Cost plus is a fantastic way top do business. | | While working on a cost plus contract in the early 2010s i cant | begin to describe the amount of cool shit i bought with a one | line explanation as to its purpose. | | Probably isn't as cool if the taxpayer is pick up the bill | mind.... | Manuel_D wrote: | Cost plus contracts are well intentioned, but create perverse | incentives. It's also a big issue in the defense industry. The | idea is that a contract pays a company the cost of producing a | product, plus N% for profit. Thus, profit is fixed and companies | cant profit _too_ much off public money. | | But in practice, this means that in order to increase profit | companies have to increase costs. If you're building a product | and you can spend $10 million to build it efficiently or $20 | million to build it inefficiently, it's actually beneficial to do | the latter. It's disincentivizing cost reductions and | incentivizing cost increases. | nynx wrote: | There must be some way to structure contracts to allow for cost | of developing new technologies yet incentivizes minimizing that | cost. | BurningFrog wrote: | One simple way is to pay a fixed sum as profit, not a | percentage of costs. | chmod775 wrote: | > There must be some way to structure contracts to allow for | cost of developing new technologies | | Make companies evaluate and eat the risk by allowing them to | set the fixed price... | | > yet incentivizes minimizing that cost. | | ... where they are bidding on the contract against other | companies. | | This only works if you have a market with multiple players, | which is possibly the main reason NASA is more heavily | leaning towards fixed-price contracts now. | bluGill wrote: | R&D is about managing risk. You can have more micro-managers | to ensure that costs are minimized, but the cost of all that | management can be more than the abuse of cost-plus (not to | mention people hate being micro-manged) | | The only good answer I've heard is for the agency to have | enough technical experts that they can spot bad things. | However that means the government needs to develop technical | experts. | kitsunesoba wrote: | > The only good answer I've heard is for the agency to have | enough technical experts that they can spot bad things. | However that means the government needs to develop | technical experts. | | It's probably beneficial for the contracted company to have | technically inclined individuals in leadership too, ranging | all the way from the lowest levels up through CEO. | Engineering-minded management is much more likely to spot | potential troublemakers and risks for runaway costs in the | planning phases where someone with a background in | management or finance is more likely to fudge things and | say "yes we can do this at X unrealistic low cost" just to | win a bid. They're also less likely to make bad calls on | how to fix budget problems that crop up midway through the | contract. | dr_orpheus wrote: | There are Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contracts that try to | address this. Instead of a single price for the contract as | in an Firm Fixed Price (FFP) there is a "target" price at | which the contractor will get some level of profit. Above | that you set a cap on the total cost of a project that you | are willing to pay, but the profit of the company goes down | as you approach the cost cap. So contractors still have the | incentive to minimize cost because if they get cost below the | "target" price the contractor still gets that as profit. | | However, people aren't usually a fan of them because it | requires all of the overhead/audits of a cost-plus contract | which typically minimizes how cost effective they can | actually be at getting below the target price. | | There are also some development-type projects where the | government will fund a project, but still require some amount | of funds (like 25%) to come from the contractor. But this is | really early development type stuff. Basically it is a way to | influence where a company is spending their R&D money. Its | not really for any operational systems. | Manuel_D wrote: | Ditch cost plus contracts and use taxes to curb companies | that are just profiting off rent-seeking behavior (like | sitting on patents). This was done during WWII, marginal tax | rates were set to 100% to discourage war profiteering. | Companies would still have an incentive to cut costs, to | increase profits. But they'd then be incentivized to reinvest | those profits because otherwise those profits would be | greatly taxed. Granted, how you'd effectively target these | taxes outside of unusual circumstances like a world war might | be too complicated to be feasible. | treeman79 wrote: | This is also the source of the weird health insurance is | provided by companies came from. Paying for peoples medical | care became an alternative way to compensate people more to | avoid absurd taxes. Medical care used to be a lot cheaper | so it wasn't a big expense. | treeman79 wrote: | This is also where free markets shine. If someone is making | absurd profits building in-efficient widgets. It won't be that | long before other people get the idea to make that same widget | for less or better quality or both. | | But first company will then go out of business or become | efficient. | | Survival of the fittest evolution style for business. | WheatM wrote: | x86_64Ubuntu wrote: | This assumes that there are no intellectual property | encumberances held by the old company, and that the barrier | to entry isn't terribly high. And no one with a budget and a | deadline is going to wait for one company to go out of | business so they can get it cheaper. | ipaddr wrote: | The first company has first movers advantage which lets them | signs exclusive deals and builds a regulatory moat plus gains | brand awareness. | | The new company may be cheaper or have better quality but | that isn't an automatic win. The second company needs more | money or an event to superseed the first story. | fatbird wrote: | You're leaving out a significant factor in cost-plus contracts | in their favour: the buyer pays the actual cost, not the cost- | plus-contingency that's built into fixed price contracts. It | may not work out that way for the reasons you mention, but the | problem of baking in risk costs to fixed priced bids returns. | And in observing "how does the contractor increase profits", | another issue with fixed price bids is that it encourages | corner-cutting internally: anywhere the contractor can save | money, it goes into their pocket, which can mean a lot of | tissue-thin requirements fulfillment that goes wrong later. | Symmetry wrote: | In theory the regulating agency overseeing the cost plus | contract is supposed to scrutinize the expenses of the overseen | entity to prevent this. In practice just form a matter of | program complexity this is hard to do. When you bring in | politics it gets even worse, "You don't want to endanger our | pilots by giving them any less than the most gold plated | fighter jets, do you?" argue the defense lobbyists. | | The worst example I can think of would probably be the nuclear | industry where operators providing grid power on cost plus | contracts teamed up with environmentalists after Three Mile | Island to get laws passed insisting that nuclear power had to | be as safe as possible regardless of cost, which turned into | essentially a license to print money. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > In theory the regulating agency overseeing the cost plus | contract is supposed to scrutinize the expenses of the | overseen entity to prevent this | | The entire point of getting the private sector is that their | insentive should be to do it in the most efficient manner | possible, and noone has to manage them - the inefficient ones | just die out. | | The second-best approach is to have the government manage the | whole thing, where they have no real incentive to be | efficient. | | But what we have here is employing the private sector and | incentivising them to be as inefficient as possible, and the | government must still hire an army of accountants and experts | to keep them in check. it's combines the worst aspects of | both! | krapht wrote: | For what it's worth, while on any single contract you might | get bad behavior from a contractor, their reputation will | matter when they go for a recompete or bid on a new | contract vehicle. | | Not all contracts are automatically won by the lowest-cost | bidder. Yes, it allows corruption on the part of the person | doing the hiring, but it's better than the alternative. | astrange wrote: | In California, Tutor Perini seems to be famous for | winning government construction contracts despite | constant failures and unexpected price increases, because | the law does require lowest bidder and doesn't allow | ignoring low bids from known liars. | themitigating wrote: | The government would have no reason to rip itself off as | well unless there's corruption but that should be | investigated. | krapht wrote: | You must be somebody who's never had to remove an | underperforming colleague on a public project. | | What happens is that they get promoted to another team, | or put on a project that has absolutely no future, and | everyone knows it. | | Why is it difficult to remove people? Because in the old | days, newly elected executives would clear out the civil | service and hire or contract with people that supported | their election campaign. | abathur wrote: | They wouldn't have a reason rip themselves off, but the | decision-makers may not be well-incentivized to control | cost (or might be incentivized to make "safe" choices | over "smart" ones). | | I have wondered if we could ~endow government agencies in | a way that would let them fail, and do the same to spin | up ~internal competitors when we feel like turning up | competition/innovation. | | But it's not something I have gamed out enough steps to | feel confident about... | colordrops wrote: | > Cost plus contracts are well intentioned | | Are they though? If a casual layman internet reader can see the | problem and see that they always get taken advantage of for | profit, couldn't also the NASA officials and contractors | signing these contracts? They know exactly what they are doing. | | SpaceX signed non-cost plus contracts and delivered far more | quickly and cheaply than the rest. | travisporter wrote: | The problem is Congress tells NASA do this with this money | this way. NASA has little flexibility. Recently with the CLPS | program NASA flexed it's muscle and it's paying off so far. | lumost wrote: | In R&D, incentivizing a private enterprise to spend _more_ | could be beneficial. Assuming the client (NASA) has some | oversight this leads to more engineering freedom and an | exploration of a larger design space, whereas fixed cost would | incentivize racing towards the best solution as fast as | possible. | | Depending on program goals, both approaches have their place. | However for projects like Artemis which tried to minimize R&D | cost and save time through component re-use, the latter | approach would clearly be better. | dr_orpheus wrote: | Yes, the theory of cost-plus contracts is good. It is a way of | saying "this is a new piece of technology with ill defined | requirements and we need help developing it along the way." | Theoretically, it allows for changes and adaptations in | developments of technology. This is all in theory though and | what proponents of cost-plus would say. It does suffer from | some of the issues you have mentioned above. I think there is a | time and a place for cost-plus but there is definitely move | towards more fixed price contracts in civil and defense. | | Becoming somewhat more common now is a hybrid approach of cost- | plus/fixed. Contracts for development phases up to a certain | milestone are set up as a cost plus contract and then | production comes under a fixed price contract. | tomatotomato37 wrote: | I wonder if some of the risks of cost-plus could be mitigated | by associating it with industry average running costs rather | than a per-project basis. So contractors would get a yearly | payment with as long as they are making progress on a | project, but any changes to the project are 1-to-1 with | additional costs so there would be no benefit to either | aggressive cost cutting or sandbagging expenses. Maybe also | make it so profit would be rewarded at project completion in | proportion to the running costs of however long the project | took to prevent pointlessly lagging or rushing projects. Of | course there would also have to be bullshit like opportunity | cost compensation and shit because these companies are so | profit-driven as to crash a project meant for the public good | if it means more profit from interest on a 0.5% bank account | klodolph wrote: | Cost-plus is _supposed_ to be primarily for research and | development, where the costs are highly variable to begin | with. | gabereiser wrote: | This has been my experience as well through contracts with the | government. | | To further this, there is also no incentive and funds to | modernize an already existing product. If it was written in | Java 6 using J2EE, it's going to continue to be that until it | dies. | | Folks I worked with also didn't care to up skill or learn new | ways of doing things because the incentive wasn't there. Their | cost was fixed, their price was fixed, their profit was fixed. | They will do the bare minimum to satisfy the contract. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >It's disincentivizing cost reductions and incentivizing cost | increases. | | Competetive bids drive costrs down. The alternative to cost | plus is? Not having fixed profit margins, in which case there | is still incentives to increase costs. | | In both cases the limit to costing is competition and the | contracting side. | | Another way to think of it is cost plus lowers costs by | lowering risk. If the company were on the hook for uncertainty | (which is the case on ANY project), then they would have to | price that into the original proposal, as would their | competitors, ensuring more costs to cover the risk. | | By lowering risk to companies, it provides another avenue to | lower costs. This happens in lots of markets - look at cost | margins where there is volatility versus margins where there is | predictability. | downut wrote: | Wait till you find out about Red and Blue teams submitting | bids from the same corporation. I sure loved being a small | part of that. | edmundsauto wrote: | This only works if the bids represent the same work, at the | same quality, on the same delivery schedule, with the same | feedback pathways and the same risk mitigations. | | In other words, it is the "spherical cow" of contracting. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >This only works if the bids represent the same work, at | the same quality, on the same delivery schedule, with the | same feedback pathways and the same risk mitigations. | | Why would this possibly be true? Two groups can bid on the | same project with different tradeoffs. Projects are | complex, and there are zillions of tradeoffs to make a | competitive bid. The group offering the project then | evaluates the bids, often with multiple rounds of feedback. | | And generally then these projects initially got to several | competitors, with fewer getting follow-on work, causing | them all to try really hard to deliver good work. | | Future projects are always worth more than current | projects, so only an idiot does bad or over-cost work | often. Such groups eventually don't get more work. | | I've worked on such bids for decades. Multiple groups bid, | with a statement of work. The other side evaluates the | bids. Cost plus simply allows groups, when bidding to not | have to use larger multipliers to mitigate risk, since some | of the risk goes to the offeror. | | If you were running a company, and you had two ways to bid | a contract, firm fixed price vs cost plus, which do you | think provides less risk to you? | | And how does a company account for risk? | | Higher prices, end of story. This is simple economics. | | It's why less risk results in smaller margins throughout | pretty much all industries. It allows stable planning. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "And how does a company account for risk? | | Higher prices, end of story. This is simple economics." | | The job of the company is to manage risk of the project | they are delivering, and let the ones that do it well | win. What the hell is the point of private sector if the | taxpayer pics up the tab every time something goes wrong? | | I don't know what bids you dealt with, the ones I did | looked nothing klike what you describe. For any non- | mundane work, that's not like, paving a street, you low- | ball the bid, deliver the bare minimum the paperwork | allows and then keep milking the government for | improvements because what you've delivered is not good | enough. | | If the bid is about new technology, the tradeoffs cannot | be understood by non-experts, and are difficult to | pinpoint even for experts. The expertiese required to | access how good is the bid is the same as the expertiese | needed to design the system -> if you have that | expertiese on hand, you would not need to outsource the | design. | | The process is insanely time intensive, expensive, and | difficult to navigate. Not because government is | inefficient, but because taht's the nature of new | technology. | | > Future projects are always worth more than current | projects, so only an idiot does bad or over-cost work | often. Such groups eventually don't get more work. | | In UK Capita get work again and again despite fucking it | up all the time | zbrozek wrote: | Cost plus isn't used just at NASA. It's even more evil in | other arenas, like electricity in California. Our regulators | allow for a fixed profit margin for opex and a higher fixed | profit margin for capex. This has the twin effects of running | things to failure (and igniting the state) in order to avoid | opex and instead claim capex, and also motivating as-high-as- | possible costs for everything. No competitive bids are | possible. | jiggawatts wrote: | The same madness happens here in Australia too. Just | recently I did an IT project for a local electric utility | company and they were blowing $200K on firewalls for a | system used by 10 people. Similarly they "upgraded" a | perfectly good 10 Gbps fixed line to 200 Gbps for the same | group of users. They can utilise maybe 1 Gbps on a busy | day. | | They also get a fixed profit ratio relative to capex. So | they burn giant piles of money to get their percentage from | the government... | LegitShady wrote: | >The alternative to cost plus is? | | Contracts where the contracting party agrees to a % of | responsibility. When the project runs over the profit is | reduced by the overrun * the percent responsibility. | | Lets say the agreement has 25 million in profit and 40% | responsibility. If the project runs over by $2m, the | contractor eats $2m * .4 = $800k reduction in profit so now | it's $24.2m. | | Then they're actually incentivized to not have overruns. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >Contracts where the contracting party agrees to a % of | responsibility. | | Except no big agency does this because it's a legal | nightmare. The others (cost plus and firm fixed) are well | explored. | | >Then they're actually incentivized to not have overruns. | | Everyone has incentives not to overrun - it means you're | less likely to get future work, and future work is worth | much more than overrunning current work. | LegitShady wrote: | >Except no big agency does this because it's a legal | nightmare. | | agencies are starting to do it more and more often. It | won't get explored if people are scared, but it will get | explored if people actually want to fix the problems with | procurement overruns. | | >Everyone has incentives not to overrun | | in cost plus your overrun often directly leads to you | making more money. So no, not exactly. | | >it means you're less likely to get future work, and | future work is worth much more than overrunning current | work. | | Maybe, maybe not. Lots of things have few competitive | bidders, or bidders who bid knowing they're going to make | overruns and claims to make the contract profitable when | their bid never was. it's often called 'buying the job' | in other industries. | efsavage wrote: | A better way to align incentives would be to have the bids | specify fixed profits and a value engineering process. You bid | $10m + $1m profit. The project baloons to a $20m project, you | still make $1m. The project meets it's goals with a $5m budget, | you get $1m and a percentage of the shortfall. It can still be | gamed, but to a much lesser degree. | | I worked on a 9-figure construction project and there were two | full-time engineers specifically tasked with looking for ways | to _reduce_ the cost of the project, because it was essentially | free money for the contractor. These two people generated | millions in profit for the company. | | https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/vecp.cfm | bryanrasmussen wrote: | Good, but often people reduce costs by using lower quality | supplies so that isn't necessarily foolproof either. | Closi wrote: | All these approaches have plusses and minuses and their own | risks. The risks with the approach you have described are | that: | | a) Unless very carefully managed, you can end up with | contractors being incentivised to cut corners (i.e. We make | more money if we buy the cheapest doors possible, regardless | of if they only last a few weeks). | | b) If contractors have fixed profits at their bid-price, they | will have zero incentive to accept any change requests | (unless they come with additional margin, in which case, | overspends will magically turn into change requests). | airstrike wrote: | If those doors are still built-to-spec, then shouldn't you | be fine? | Retric wrote: | There are a lot of games you can play to make say rent look | like a cost on a contract while another entity makes a profit | from that rent. Worse you still have incentives to offload | costs onto a contract. For example someone finishes an | unrelated contract your might as well move them to a profit + | contract rather than benching them or immediately laying them | off. | | In the end markets simply aren't efficient without pricing | information. If you can't get someone to bid a fixed price | you might as well keep in in house. | krapht wrote: | Those games you play are a lot easier to deal with | oversight-wise. I disagree with your conclusion. You're | assuming in-house doesn't have the same perverse | incentives. Also, pricing information can be impossible to | discover. You often hear on HN how nobody can realistically | estimate large software programs. Under that regime, what | good is a firm fixed price contract? What'll happen is that | the company, once it goes over-budget, will stop work | and/or go bankrupt depending on the legal contract it | signed. Then the client has no choice but to add more money | into the pot - which suddenly sounds like a cost+ contract. | Retric wrote: | I have worked on plenty of fixed price software projects. | The simple reality is when you fix costs quality becomes | the flexible metric, but meeting the minimum project | goals becomes really important. However, considering how | many software projects fail reaching the agreed upon | minimum at the agreed upon price is vastly better than | what generally happens. | | As to failing to finish a project the wonders of fixed | price contracting is you can pay at completion of some | milestone. Of course that means people need to pad the | price even more ahead of time to assume that risk, but | price becomes a really useful signal. | photochemsyn wrote: | One of the areas where this seems to have happened is at the | NSA, which usually keeps its contracts very secret, but due to | William Binney's whistleblowing, it was revealed that the | inexpensive solution (ThinThread) was passed over in favor of | the expensive solution (TrailBlazer). | | https://whistleblower.org/whistleblower-profiles/thinthread-... | | Part of the problem here is that the government actors | selecting the contracts also want more money flowing through | their agency, and they seem to get kickbacks in the form of | 'retirement positions' with the very private contractors | they're directing contracts to. | avalys wrote: | This is why it's ridiculous that the US Affordable Care Act | (Obamacare) "caps" profit for health insurers as a fraction of | premiums collected. It provides a direct incentive for them to | increase healthcare costs, absolutely the opposite of what | government policy should be doing. | dbg31415 wrote: | For those of us who embrace agile methodologies... there is | always benefit to cost plus contracts. | | Clients never have all the requirements up-front, and even if | they did requirements tend to shift as we plan, design, build, | test... | | It's also nice to not have to go through a lengthy contract | negotiation for change orders. | | Look, I hear the "lack of incentive" argument, but I think it's | less about trying to over-bill clients, and more about trying to | adapt to ever-changing needs of clients. Not sure "plague" is the | right term. | [deleted] | newaccount2021 wrote: | simulate-me wrote: | Companies receiving these contracts (either fixed-price or cost- | plus) will be incentivized to maximize profit and the expense of | the shareholder. I don't think it's possible to remove this | incentive. Instead, the government should be more careful with | whom receives the contracts. For instance, SpaceX seems dedicated | to doing a good job and driving costs down. Therefore, right now, | SpaceX should receive more contracts. SpaceX's focus may change | in the future, and it's the government's responsibility to pay | attention to those changes and change contractors if SpaceX | starts leeching off of government funds. Adequate competition for | contracts will align incentives more than the structure of any | particular contract. Everyone here saying that Lockheed turns a | 10B problem into 20B of work due to cost-plus might be correct. | But why can't the government find someone to do the work for 10B? | With proper competition, incentives will align. | aurizon wrote: | If one contrasts the bang for the buck between the 'usual NASA | suspects' and the performance of SpaceX, there is a lesson there. | In addition, the NASA Mil-SPEC process is rooted in a far past | era that insisted on x-rays of every resistor and part for making | sure nothing ever failed. This is the old For want of a nail... | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail Modern parts | manufacture now makes parts with 7 or higher 9's of reliability. | 6 nines = 1 in a million fails, so a spacecraft with a million | resistors is a 50:50 effort and so on. This hunt for more 9's has | led Nasa down a cost rabbit hole, exacerbated by these fees+ | contracts. Of course, there are also overlays of accounting and | admin verification that can add 25-50% to a project, esp small | runs. On the other hand, we see mention of 60% of Russian weapons | fail in various ways in Ukraine - training, bad parts, ruble | theft. I have read stories that maintenance crews in Russian | warehouses have sold as many as 50% of the diesel engines as well | as gold plated circuit boards and edge connectors have been sold | by employees for scrap - as well as ruble diversions for | $600,000,000 Italian yachts - I think the SpaceX method is the | best. | ineedasername wrote: | Fixed price allows less flexibility if "gotchas" are found during | development, which they almost always are. | | But you can get to a middle ground: A large project where I work | did fixed price but built in $X hours of additional work to the | price, to be used on a discretionary basis when unexpected issues | arise. More flexible than pure fixed-price and not as open-ended | as costs plus. | | Still not perfect: the vendor has every incentive to utilize | every last $X hour in the pool, but strong oversight kept the | worst of that in check. | bluGill wrote: | I disagree. Cost-Plus might not be the right model, but fixed | price only works if all the risks are known and so easy to | account for. | | Plenty of builders can make you a house on a fixed-cost. I used | to know one, and every spec house he built was within $1000 of | his initial price because he could look at prints and know in an | hour how much the lumber, labor, plumbing, electric, cabinets... | would cost. He could figure this out even if it was the first | time building that print. (spec house was important - if it was | custom the owners were use to add $30,000 in upgrades) | | SpaceX can quote you a fixed price launch of crew dragon to ISS. | However if you want to build a new ship - there are too many | unknowns. I'm sure if NASA was content to stick with the | opportunity rover design they could have thousands on the surface | of mars by now for the budget that has gone into the various | programs we have done since then - but we learn a lot more from | the new programs that opportunity can't give (perhaps we would | know more about mars?). | | Most of the things NASA does are things where the risk is far too | high for anyone sane to take on all the risk in a fixed price | contract. Instead NASA needs to take on the risk in some way. | Either that means some form of contract like cost-plus, or a lot | of smaller contracts such that everyone can succeed at their | contracts while the project itself is a failure (I'll make module | X exactly to specs, too bad if you mess up the specs). All forms | of such contracts are subject to abuse, NASA needs to figure out | how to manage that abuse. | dotnet00 wrote: | But isn't accounting for risks and having contingencies to | minimize their impact part of good engineering practice? Eg. | when designing a new rocket, you know that the engines might | have issues causing delays, you can't predict exactly what | issues but you can estimate how much extra money and time you | could lose there. | | For instance, as part of their filing for the HLS competition, | SpaceX supposedly had around ~400 pages just discussing | cryogenic propellant storage and transfer, along with the | associated risks and how they would mitigate them. | | It's also a bit of a stretch to say NASA isn't taking on risk | in fixed price, as they're still paying large sums of money for | each agreed upon milestone. The point is that the risk needs to | be shared. Cost+ takes away pretty much all of the risk for the | company, taking away their incentive to do their best | (especially considering that until SpaceX came around and blew | the doors open for smaller companies, there were only a handful | of competitors who were all basically the same culture wise). | lamontcg wrote: | Strict fixed-pricing seems like a recipe for something like | JWST to fail miserably in the future. | | For an expensive one-off like that there needs to be wiggle | room to deal with design uncertainties and the unknown- | unknowns. | | Fixed price might be more reasonable for smaller less expensive | missions where the uncertainties are less and the tolerance for | failure is higher. | trothamel wrote: | SpaceX did bid fixed-price for HLS, the moon lander they're | working on. That project will required developing refueling | from an on-orbit propellant depot to succeed. | | The thing with SLS is it was supposed to be low-risk, based on | Space Shuttle heritage - it doesn't do much that's new. Despite | that, it's on a cost plus contract that's ballooned. | nickff wrote: | Nobody in their right minds would have touched SLS with a | fixed-price contract; NASA is too involved in the design, | construction, and testing. | masklinn wrote: | > The thing with SLS is it was supposed to be low-risk, based | on Space Shuttle heritage - it doesn't do much that's new. | | HLV would have been a low-risk launcher based on the shuttle. | SLSs is a new launcher build from recycled parts. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Not just heritage, the SLS is basically what you get if you | move the Space Shuttle engines onto the propellant tank and | remove the orbiter vehicle. Then discard the reusability | requirement and you've got SLS. | | In the process of this, everything is being modernized. This | is where all the cost comes from. | bluGill wrote: | SpaceX only did that is they wanted to do it anyway, so they | were willing for the risk | Closi wrote: | The counter-problem is that a cost-plus contract works the | opposite way - you are incentivised to account for none of the | risks in your initial bid to make your quote competitive, and | the sales strategy is to 'land and expand' (i.e. get the | initial contract and then expand it's value - sales teams will | openly talk about land and expand behind closed doors). | | In practice this means that the quotes you get back are much | harder to assess from a commercial perspective, as you are | trying to weed out which companies are underquoting. | | Also cost plus contracts almost always end up being cost 'plus | plus' if you dig enough under the covers in my experiences in | procurement/contract management (there are always hidden fees | and profit lines, and too many opportunities for conflicts of | interest or to charge more to the open book), so even a low % | can just mean more 'hidden' profits. You could write a book on | all the ways to extract additional profit from an open book | contract. | | IMO the best model isn't an either/or approach, it's a mix of | models where the right model is used at the right time | (including open book, fixed price, rate cards, hybrid contracts | e.t.c.) where the contracts are adequately sized & scoped (i.e. | several small fixed price contracts with set deliverables which | have value on their own rather than one huge contract with one | massive deliverable at the end). | uberman wrote: | This 100% and it is not just super risky things like "exploring | space". | | If you have ever PIed on a government contract you will know | that the program manager will almost certainly deviate from | what is in the contract. They will call unbudgeted out of town | meetings, ask for unbudgeted reporting, demand unbudgeted | changes to the deliverables. | | As a contractor working with the government, "cost plus" is the | only sane option. The program manager is not going to have the | bandwidth to renegotiate (and bid out?) in the almost certain | event of a change in scope. | | The alternative to "cost plus" is defensive billing where the | contractor attempts to devine and account for extra non- | contracted work. That lead us in the past to $1000 hammers and | no-one liked that either. | Aperocky wrote: | > stick with the opportunity rover design they could have | thousands on the surface of mars | | Now that's something I'm not against. | gpm wrote: | NASA doesn't need to be in the business of managing that risk | and the abuse that comes with it. NASA can pay a fixed cost | equal to the expected cost of the project, and the contractor | can buy insurance if they want insurance against cost overruns. | | Insurance companies are in a much better place to price this | insurance than NASA, because they have the correct financial | incentive to do so well, and no political incentives to do so | poorly. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _Insurance companies are in a much better place to price | this insurance than NASA_ | | Is that really a thing? The risks of adverse selection and | moral hazards would seem insurmountable. | bluGill wrote: | You can get insurance on anything you want. However the | more unknowns there are, the more they will charge. You can | get fire insurance that will cover even if you burn your | house down - but it will cost you (not having insurance and | burning your house down might cost $.01 more than buying | insurance) | gpm wrote: | You can negotiate insurance for just about anything (there | are sometimes laws against things like taking out life | insurance policies against a third party, but none that | would apply here). No doubt the insurance company would | insist on various forms of audits, similar to what the | government insists of for cost plus contracts today. | Probably the most successful contractors wouldn't pay an | insurance company for this, because it's a stupid model for | contracts that wastes resources, but it wastes no more | resources than having the government play the role of the | insurance company. | teruakohatu wrote: | I think you need to articulate why you think the govt. is | forced into this insurer role. They are no different to | any large private buyer. | | Any insurance would be expensive, and would be a cost | passed to the government, as any other project related | costs are. The insurance provider spreads risks across | policies but since all these policies would probably be | for government contracts, the costs would all be passed | on to government. The government would end up paying for | all the policies plus the insurance company profit | margin. | | The only winner here is the insurance company, maybe the | contractors. The government will be slightly worse off. | bluGill wrote: | They don't have to, but someone will be the insurance | provider and the government will pay for it. The | government by playing insurance has better options to cut | a project if things are getting to expensive, but this | requires some willingness to cut project scope which they | might not be willing for (and a contract that allows such | a thing). | gpm wrote: | > I think you need to articulate why you think the govt. | is forced into this insurer role. They are no different | to any large private buyer. | | An insurance provider is a party taking financial risk if | something goes bad for someone else. In the cost plus | contracting model, the government is taking the financial | risk if the project goes poorly for the contractor, that | is the government is providing insurance. | | > The insurance provider spreads risks across policies | but since all these policies would probably be for | government contracts, the costs would all be passed on to | government. | | Of course, there is no free money here. However the | government can correctly evaluate the costs of the | different proposals under a fixed cost contract model, | whereas they are not capable of correctly evaluating the | cost of the insurance that they add on top in a cost plus | model, because they aren't set up to correctly price the | insurance they are selling. This means that in the fixed | price model, they can get a much better approximation of | the cost in the value/cost equation they are trying to | maximize when evaluating bids, and it means that | contractors are motivated to provide options that | maximize the same, instead of being motivated to provide | options that maximize the difference between how the | government miss-prices the insurance, and the actual | value of the insurance. In the end everyone ends up | better off, because there is less waste. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I should probably have been clearer. I understand you can | insure all kinds of risks, and that you can ask an | underwriter to insure against most anything. My question | is more whether this is a well-formed insurance market | where coverage is available under economically realistic | terms. | gpm wrote: | I can't say that I'm aware of an active market for | insurance similar to this, not that I would necessarily | be aware of one. | | If one doesn't exist, that should just be a sign that the | government really shouldn't be providing it either | though, because it isn't profitable. The government isn't | somehow better placed to insure R&D work (or whatever you | want to call the work being discussed) than any other | insurance company is. | bluGill wrote: | The government is better able to set a fixed budget | though. R&D as in do X hours of work on FTL is much | better than deliver FTL (I intentionally picked something | impossible - though in a the world R&D should be about | things you think are possible but are not sure of) | gpm wrote: | What you're describing isn't a cost plus contract, it's a | fixed cost contract for a study (assuming cost/hour is | fixed). These exist, they're frequently a good idea. | | Cost plus would be "deliver a FTL ship, we'll pay you X * | costs, no it doesn't really matter if you go 10x over | what you initially quoted us for the work and still don't | have the thing". You can see why contractors under that | model are willing to make unrealistic quotes and promises | about FTL, or for a real world example why SLS is many | years and many billions of dollars behind schedule. | teruakohatu wrote: | > NASA can pay a fixed cost equal to the expected cost of the | project | | Sure they can, but when they decide to tweak the project the | company can tell them "no, that sounds risky". | | So what will happen is the contract will end up stating | something like all adjustments are priced at cost plus... and | NASA is back at square one. | gpm wrote: | You don't get to change the deliverables of cost plus | contracts without re-negotiation either. That's not the | risk that is being avoided here, the risk is that the | company is going to decide to ask for more money for the | same service they initially promised. | | For example with Boeing's recent starliner tests, they | would be asking for more money to fly the orbital flight | test that they initially promised, because they fucked it | up the first time. | Symmetry wrote: | Fixed price contracts may cost the government a lot of time and | money but they might still be good insurance against political | risk. In WWI many companies that won armament fixed price | contracts were able to make large profits, partially leading to a | backlash in the interwar years over the idea that the US had been | led into WWI by corporate interests leading to US isolationism | before WWII. By using mostly cost plus contracts in WWII FDR was | able to diffuse the political issue. | | I sort of worry that even if SpaceX is able to provide launch | services for NASA at a far lower rate than other companies, and | that even if their absolute profit s are lower than their | competitors they'll still have profit margins so high that it'll | lead to backlash given the weak competition. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Fixed price contracts are also similarly abused. | | https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes-addi... | Robotbeat wrote: | But not as easily. Boeing has since had to eat the costs | associated with an extra test flight. | nickff wrote: | Fixed price has cost NASA dearly in the past, because NASA | often changes things after making a purchase decision. The | 'change orders' are often where contractors make their real | money. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Contractors may lose out on the initial fixed-price contract, | but they'll make it up on change requests - for any kind of | realistic scale, the customer never knows exactly what they | want, there are always changes, and by that point it's | largely unrealistic to shop those contracts elsewhere. | Robotbeat wrote: | Not in this case as commercial crew has two providers. So | if Boeing doesn't do the work, they just won't be paid, and | SpaceX will get more flights (and this is exactly what has | happened). If this keeps going indefinitely, NASA will on- | board a new partner besides Boeing, such as SNC's Dream | Chaser (other potential options include Blue Origin, who | eventually want to build an orbital crew vehicle, and even | technically Lockheed Martin who own the plans to Orion and | are allowed to bid it commercially). | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | I suppose it depends on the nature of the contract; for | launch services I guess that makes sense; but for a | development project, it's different - if you give | Lockheed Martin the contract to build the Mars Ascent | Vehicle, you're probably going to need to revise the | requirements through the lifetime of the project, and | it's not very credible to say "OK, Boeing's taking over | from here" for the change requests. | rozab wrote: | Commercial Crew _is_ a development project, I don 't see | what the difference is. | Robotbeat wrote: | Funny you say that because NASA is taking a very similar | approach to the HLS lander for Artemis. They did start | with just one provider (as Starship is the only one they | could afford) but they're trying to include a second | lander provider ASAP, partly by the insistence of | Congress (who doesn't like that their typical defense | contractor donors didn't get picked for the first HLS | lander). | rhacker wrote: | Let's say you're Lockheed and you have a 10B budget for X but you | have a contract that lets you go over. What's to stop you from | immediately placing 9B of that in rich pockets and trying to | build the damn thing for 1B. After all there's no incentive to | actually deliver for the 10B so asking for another 5B - bringing | the total actual effort to 2B (see what I did there). | zardo wrote: | > What's to stop you from immediately placing 9B of that in | rich pockets | | The government accounting that goes along with the contract. | They can waste money or do a bad job, but they can't just say | they spent the money on executive bonuses. | tomrod wrote: | QA/acceptance requirements. But you are right that this game is | hard to play. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-04 23:00 UTC)