Well, from my experience, here is the likely reason that NASA doesn’t like a fixed-price contract: ownership and/or control of the technology. Cost-type contra

Well, from my experience, here is the likely reason that NASA doesn’t like a fixed-price contract: ownership and/or control of the technology. Cost-type contracts give the government more opportunity to “participate” in the development process. Fixed-price contracts typically don’t when written properly. Agencies like NASA are run by contractors—-just like all of the tech agencies these days (about 70%).[0] These folks like to get their hands on the technology and “play” with it. Sometimes, they like to go in their labs and “reinvent” it, or “peruse it” for their own company’s product developments. And sometimes, they just like to massage the tech in a direction so that their own positions/support contracts at the agency are solidified. “Ah, this is nonsense,” you say. And I say “I watched it happen in DoD—and was the victim of it on several occasions-for years and years and years.” In the old days, it was just a battle trying to keep government employees out of your intellectual property. Then, the government went to the current “support contractor” model. And it got to be an even bigger problem. There are rules that try to prevent contractors from stealing from each other, but it happens nonetheless. From the government’s point of view, contractors that self-level in technology is a “win.” For the individual contractor with unique technology, a cost-type contract can be a disaster. So, if I worked at SpaceX, I would definitely want fixed-price contracts with firm deliverables and IP rights and nobody from the government getting involved with my technology or engineering. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/o53010409.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/o530104...