Harry K wrote:

I won't sign a contract on a 'cost plus' basis if it includes labor as
part of the cost - that is opening the door to a raid on your pocket
book. Now if it is 'cost plus a perecentage of material costs' that is
a different matter.

I don't follow your logic. A cost plus arrangement is only a good idea
if you have a contractor you know, have worked with before, and you
trust. Labor is a cost to the contractor. Labor can be the biggest
variable. Most contractors wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how to
do a cost plus on materials only with a fixed labor cost. How can
materials be an unknown and the labor be known? That makes no sense.

I prefer contracts on the 'total cost' so I know exactly what I will be
paying. Of course I expect the contractor to build in a fudge factor
and I may pay more than a 'cost plus' but...

I think what you're looking to do is to have a cost plus arrangement,
including labor, and have an upset or not-to-exceed price capping your
risk. The standard arrangement is to have a bonus for the contractor
if he brings the project in under the cap. In other words, he'd get
more money for working fewer hours, and that money is in his pocket not
the labor crew.

Google around a little bit, you'll definitely find a better way of
writing your contracts that won't alienate contractors.

R