Direct comparison
Cost-Reimbursable vs. Fixed-Price Contracts
How FAR pricing structures allocate cost-overrun risk differently, and what that means for a university holding a federal contract.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Cost-Reimbursable vs. Fixed-Price Contracts
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Cost-Reimbursable Contract, Fixed-Price Contract compare side by side?
The table below compares Cost-Reimbursable Contract, Fixed-Price Contract across 10 procurement-relevant dimensions, from far governance through consequence of a significant cost overrun.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Cost-Reimbursable Contract | Fixed-Price Contract |
|---|---|---|
| FAR governance | FAR Subpart 16.3 | FAR Subpart 16.2 |
| Who bears cost-overrun risk | The government (funder), up to the negotiated ceiling | The contractor (the research institution), entirely |
| Payment basis | Allowable, allocable costs actually incurred, plus fee where applicable | A single negotiated price, unrelated to actual cost incurred |
| FAR default preference | Used only when requirements or costs cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy for fixed-price (FAR 16.301-2) | FAR’s stated preference when risk is minimal or predictable (FAR 16.103(a)) |
| Contractor accounting-system check | Required — contracting officer must find the accounting system adequate to segregate contract costs (FAR 16.301-3) | Not required for award; sound cost estimating at proposal stage is what matters instead |
| Ongoing incurred-cost tracking / audit exposure | Extensive — incurred-cost documentation, effort reporting, Single Audit exposure under 2 CFR 200 Subpart F | Minimal for reimbursement purposes once priced; internal cost control remains good practice |
| Typical use in research contracting | Federally funded R&D whose scope/cost is not yet well-defined — the default for most sponsored research contracts | Well-specified deliverables, services, or production work where cost can be estimated confidently |
| Common sub-types | Cost, cost-sharing, CPIF, CPAF, CPFF (FAR 16.302–16.306) | Firm-fixed-price (FFP), fixed-price with economic price adjustment, fixed-price incentive (FPI) (FAR 16.202–16.204) |
| Surplus if actual cost is lower than estimated | Institution does not keep a surplus — it is only reimbursed for costs actually incurred | Institution keeps the difference (subject to institutional residual-funds policy) |
| Consequence of a significant cost overrun | Contractor must stop work or seek contracting-officer approval to exceed the ceiling; no automatic institutional loss | Institution absorbs the full shortfall from departmental/institutional funds — no contractual recovery mechanism |
Common questions
Common questions about Cost-Reimbursable Contract vs Fixed-Price Contract
Can a research institution refuse a fixed-price contract for R&D work?
+
There is no absolute right of refusal, but sponsored-programs offices routinely push back on firm-fixed pricing for exploratory or ill-defined research scopes, and FAR Subpart 35.006 itself instructs contracting officers to use cost-reimbursement for R&D whose cost cannot be estimated with confidence — that FAR language is the strongest argument an institution has for requesting a cost-reimbursement structure instead.
Is a fixed-price grant the same thing as a fixed-price contract?
+
No. They share the same risk-allocation logic (a single agreed amount, with the recipient keeping any surplus and absorbing any overrun), but a fixed-price grant is a grant instrument under 2 CFR 200 or a private funder’s own terms, not a FAR-governed procurement contract — see CASRAI’s Fixed-Price Grant entry for how that non-FAR variant works.
Does 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) apply to a federal cost-reimbursement contract held by a university?
+
Partially. Under 2 CFR § 200.101(c)(2), a non-federal entity holding a FAR cost-reimbursement contract is still subject to the Uniform Guidance’s Subpart E (Cost Principles) and Subpart F (Audit Requirements), and the subrecipient-monitoring provisions in Subpart D — but the FAR itself, not the rest of 2 CFR 200, governs the contract’s other terms and conditions.
Which is more common for federally funded university research — cost-reimbursement or fixed-price?
+
Cost-reimbursement, by a wide margin. Most federally funded R&D at universities is uncertain enough in scope or cost at the outset that FAR 16.301-2 and 35.006 push contracting officers toward cost-reimbursement types; fixed-price shows up more often for well-defined deliverables, services, or later-stage development work.
Going deeper
