On April 30, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, “Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting.”  This EO directs agencies to make fixed-price contracts the default form of contracting, and requires agency officials to execute written justifications to use other forms of contracting.  Of particular note for large contractors, the EO directs that, “[w]ithin 90 days of the date of this order, each agency head shall review and, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with law, seek to modify, restructure, or renegotiate its 10 largest non-fixed-price contracts by dollar value . . . to facilitate use of fixed prices and performance-based incentives for contract deliverables to the maximum extent practicable.”

The EO states that fixed-price contracts with performance-based incentives are preferred over cost-reimbursement contracts because fixed-price contracts encourage contractors to control costs and efficiently meet deliverables.  It therefore directs that “that fixed-price contracts with performance-based considerations should serve as the default and preferred method of procurement.”

To that end, contracting officers must justify in writing the use of any non-fixed-price contract to the agency head.  If the value of the contract exceeds certain thresholds, then the agency head must approve the contract in writing, unless the contract falls into one of two exempted categories:  (1) support for emergency response, disaster relief, or contingency operations; or (2) research and development or pre‑production development for major systems acquisition.

Additionally, “[w]ithin 90 days of the date of this order, each agency head shall review and, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with law, seek to modify, restructure, or renegotiate its 10 largest non-fixed-price contracts by dollar value . . . to facilitate use of fixed prices and performance-based incentives for contract deliverables to the maximum extent practicable.”  The same two categories of contracts are exempt from this direction.

The EO also directs agency heads to submit a semi-annual report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that includes the number of, value of, and written justification for, any non-fixed-price contracts approved by the agency.

Finally, the EO directs OMB to issue guidance to agencies within 45 days of the order, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to propose Federal Acquisition Regulation amendments within 120 days of the order. 

We’ll see how this plays out, but contractors should be prepared for an increased push by federal agencies to use fixed-price contracts. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jay Carey Jay Carey

Recognized by Chambers as one of the nation’s top bid protest lawyers and government contracts practitioners, Jay Carey represents clients in complex, high-stakes government procurements often worth billions of dollars. He is a co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts practice group and a…

Recognized by Chambers as one of the nation’s top bid protest lawyers and government contracts practitioners, Jay Carey represents clients in complex, high-stakes government procurements often worth billions of dollars. He is a co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts practice group and a co-chair of the Aerospace, Defense, and National Security industry group.

Jay has won bid protests collectively worth more than $100 billion, for clients across a range of industries — including aerospace & defense, energy, healthcare, biotechnology, cybersecurity, IT, and telecommunications. He litigates protests before the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); the Court of Federal Claims (COFC); and state tribunals across the country. A list of his recent wins can be found under the “Representative Matters” tab.

In addition, Jay advises clients on compliance matters, conducts internal investigations, and defends against investigations by federal and state agencies. He also counsels clients on matters related to the formation of government contracts, including organizational conflicts of interest and the protection of intellectual property rights when entering into procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and “Other Transaction Authority” agreements with the government.

Jay serves as co-chair of the American Bar Association Public Contract Law Section’s Bid Protest Committee.

Photo of Kayleigh Scalzo Kayleigh Scalzo

Ranked by Chambers USA among government contracts practitioners, Kayleigh Scalzo represents government contractors in bid protests and other high-stakes litigation matters with the government and other private parties. She has litigated bid protests in a wide variety of forums, including the Government Accountability…

Ranked by Chambers USA among government contracts practitioners, Kayleigh Scalzo represents government contractors in bid protests and other high-stakes litigation matters with the government and other private parties. She has litigated bid protests in a wide variety of forums, including the Government Accountability Office, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, FAA Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, federal and state agencies, and state courts.

Kayleigh a co-chair of the American Bar Association Public Contract Law Section’s Bid Protest Committee. She is also a frequent speaker on bid protest issues.

Kayleigh maintains an active pro bono practice focused on immigration issues and gender rights.

Photo of Darby Rourick Darby Rourick

Darby Rourick is a government contracts lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. She has particular experience in federal cybersecurity and information technology supply chain issues. Darby has an active investigations…

Darby Rourick is a government contracts lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. She has particular experience in federal cybersecurity and information technology supply chain issues. Darby has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information, as well as representing contractors facing allegations of cyber fraud under the False Claims Act. She also counsels clients on cybersecurity incident response; compliance with federal cybersecurity laws, regulations, and standards; supplier and subcontractor security issues; and cybersecurity related investigations.

Darby has particular regulatory experience with:

Government cybersecurity supply chain issues like the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements; and
Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

She also assist clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements;
Allegations of violations of cybersecurity regulation;
Cyber incidents and data spills; and 
Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.