Cost-plus contract
A cost-plus contract reimburses the supplier's actual allowable costs and adds a fee, which may be fixed, a percentage of cost, or tied to performance incentives. It is used where scope cannot be priced confidently up front: development programs, defense work, prototype builds, and emergency capacity. The buyer takes the cost risk, which is exactly why the fee structure needs careful design.
Examples
Prototype build, cost plus fixed fee: Estimated cost $220,000, fixed fee $25,000. Actuals land at $268,000 after two design iterations, so the buyer pays $293,000. The fee did not grow with the overrun, which kept the supplier from profiting on the slip.
Incentive fee: A test fixture program sets target cost at $2,000,000 with a $160,000 target fee and an 80/20 share ratio. Actuals finish at $1,850,000, so the supplier's fee rises by 20% of the $150,000 underrun to $190,000, and the buyer still pays $120,000 less than target.
Allowability dispute avoided: An invoice includes $14,000 of expedited freight caused by the supplier's own scheduling miss. Because the contract defined allowable costs and excluded supplier-caused expediting, the line is rejected without drama.
Definition
Cost-plus exists because forcing a fixed price onto genuinely uncertain work produces either a padded bid or a supplier going underwater and cutting corners. Paying actual cost plus a fee lets work start before the design settles, which is why the structure shows up in development contracts, tooling programs with unstable requirements, and non-recurring engineering efforts.
The incentive problem is structural: a supplier reimbursed for its costs has no built-in reason to control them, and a percentage fee actively rewards spending more. Standard mitigations include a fixed fee rather than a percentage, an incentive fee with a share ratio so the supplier keeps part of any underrun, cost ceilings that require approval to exceed, and audit rights over what counts as allowable.
Cost-plus also demands visibility that fixed price does not. Buyers need a defined cost breakdown structure, agreed labor rates, and regular actuals reporting, in effect a contractual version of open-book costing. Teams that skip this discover at invoice time that "actual cost" is a negotiation, not a number.
Related Terms
Previous
Next
*GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally, and COOL VENDORS is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates and are used herein with permission. All rights reserved. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.