> From a customer perspective, with a fixed bid, isn't contractor incentivized to cut corners? It would depend on who you're contracting with. There are no do

> From a customer perspective, with a fixed bid, isn't contractor incentivized to cut corners? It would depend on who you're contracting with. There are no doubt countless (particularly massive, govt) projects where the contracted company does only the bare minimum work under the contract and doesn't care about burning the relationship. On the other hand the general arguments in favor of fixed bid from the client side is that it a) gives the client a specific number to budget/get approval for and b) it incentivizes the contractor to time-efficiently deliver what has been agreed to. Fixed bids work best when both parties have a shared, concrete idea of what needs to be delivered including level of quality and the likely amount minor changes along the way. However in practice this is often not the case, and when a difference of good-faith expectations happens usually no one is left happy. The client may feel that certain aspects were presumed to be included in the fixed bid proposal and will likely need to submit formal change requests to pay for more work (that may need to get additional approval). On the other side the contractor may feel the client is trying to squeeze potentially a sizable amount of free work beyond what was agreed upon/charged. Contracting on a time & materials basis alleviates most of the problems mentioned, but comes with its own downsides/risks for both sides.