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 · free to try
Ask about Cost-Reimbursable vs. Fixed-Price Contracts
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
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
