The Incentive Fee When the Government Causes Part of the Overrun
Gamma Logistics holds a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for depot support. Target cost is $5,000,000, target fee is $500,000, and the share ratio is 80/20 government/contractor. Minimum fee is $200,000 and maximum fee is $800,000. Gamma incurs $5,600,000 in allowable costs. Gamma claims that a three-month government delay in providing facility access caused $300,000 of the overrun and that all performance metrics missed because of that delay. The contracting officer agrees the delay was government-caused but has not issued a modification. Gamma demands the target fee of $500,000, arguing that the government caused the overrun. The CO's analysis shows that $300,000 of the overrun is attributable to the government delay and $300,000 to Gamma's inefficient scheduling. The contract's incentive formula has not been modified.
1. Calculate the fee before considering any equitable adjustment, and explain the result.
Read the worked answer
Before any equitable adjustment, the fee is calculated on the original target cost. Actual allowable cost is $5,600,000, so the overrun is $600,000. Under an 80/20 government/contractor share, Gamma bears 20% of the overrun, or $120,000. The fee is target fee minus Gamma's share: $500,000 - $120,000 = $380,000. That is above the $200,000 minimum and below the $800,000 maximum.
The result reflects the contract's incentive: Gamma does not receive the full target fee when it overruns, even if part of the overrun is government-caused. The CO should not pay $500,000 at this stage because the formula has not been adjusted.
2. How should the CO treat the $300,000 government-caused portion? What is the likely final fee or adjustment?
Read the worked answer
The CO should treat the $300,000 government-caused portion through an equitable adjustment, not by ignoring the formula. If the target cost is increased by $300,000 to $5,300,000, the remaining overrun attributable to Gamma is $300,000. Gamma's 20% share is $60,000, so the adjusted fee is $500,000 - $60,000 = $440,000.
This result leaves Gamma bearing the consequence of its inefficient scheduling while the government absorbs the cost effect of its delay. The CO should not grant the full $500,000, because that would shift Gamma's $60,000 share to the government. The CO should also consider whether the delay justifies a separate fee adjustment; if the contract's equitable-adjustment clause allows profit on the delay, the CO should negotiate that separately and document it. The minimum and maximum fee are not triggered.
3. What documentation and negotiation steps should the CO take?
Read the worked answer
The CO should document the delay, the $300,000 cost impact, and the $300,000 inefficiency finding with a cost analysis. The CO should issue a modification or a written settlement that adjusts the target cost and states the fee formula. The CO should negotiate with Gamma on the government-caused amount and the fee treatment, and should not accept Gamma's assertion that all metrics missed solely because of the delay.
The CO should require Gamma to provide scheduling and cost records. The CO should also coordinate with the payment office so the final fee matches the modification. A clear record reduces the risk of a claim and shows that the CO applied the incentive formula consistently.