from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The cost of production plus a fixed rate of profit.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. determining payment based on the actual cost of production plus an agreed-upon fee or rate of profit.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adj. determining payment based on the actual cost of production plus an agreed-upon fee or rate of profit
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Late last year, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, Ashton Carter, announced that his office would seek fixed-price contracts to replace so-called cost-plus deals, which cover all expenses and pay an extra incentive fee, even for troubled programs.
And instead of relying on cost-plus contracts that provide no incentive for saving money, defense firms should be encouraged to see keeping costs down as part of their own bottom line, as any other company would.
Complying with the system's regulations costs every defense contractor extra time, labor and mountains of paperwork—all of which gets passed onto the taxpayer thanks to the standard cost-plus contract that the Pentagon issues, which reimburses contractors for allowed expenses with an add-on fee as profit.
The majority of procurement contracts are fixed-price, not cost-plus.
The cost-plus contracts are used precisely because no one is sure what the next generation of weapons system will incorporate, what research will have to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of a particular technology, or what the labor or material cost will be over the life of the program.
With cost-plus pricing and powerful regional monopolies, there was every reason to create a top-of-the-range power system.
By contrast, until the past two years manufacturing rocket engines was considered a reliably profitable, government-backed business featuring cost-plus contracts.
The best bang for the buck investment in our future is a system where industrial activities such as carrying freight and building buildings are done by people who do them everywhere else in our society -- the commercial sector -- rather than an expensive cost-plus single-use government program.
The nation cannot afford another multibillion-dollar, government-designed, cost-plus, use-it-and-throw-it-away Saturn 5 that is destined to be a museum piece rather than the core of a new space industrial revolution.
You want to get rid of ballooning costs: Remove artificial deadlines that make no sense (see Wes Huntress article at TheSpaceReview for example) and remove the freakin 'cost-plus model as well (another article at TheSpaceReview).