Presidential Directive on Government Procurement: The 2009 presidential directive aimed to reform the way the government acquires goods and services. The directive included significant reforms to federal contracting as executive agencies could expect more accountability and completion in the federal government's contracting activities. The main reason behind this directive was the need for the federal government to take appropriate measures to reduce unnecessary spending, fraud and overbilling. Some of the key steps to be taken by the government to reform procurement activities include limiting the use of non-competitive contracts and cost reimbursement contracts, improving the quality of procurement workforce and reducing the outsourcing of inherent government functions. Other steps include implementing Government Accountability Office proposals on how to reduce overpayments and cost overruns and reviewing specified high-risk acquisition programs (Moorhouse & Connolly, 2009). President Obama's directive to reduce the use of cost-reimbursement contracts was based on the growing preference for competitive, fixed-price contracts. This preference arose from the realization that cost-reimbursement contracts had increased significantly, from $71 billion to $135 billion in less than a decade. Therefore, the President wanted to restrict cost reimbursement contracts to reduce spending on government procurement initiatives. This in turn would increase the use of competitive fixed-price contracts while allowing the use of cost reimbursement contracts only in situations that do not allow the agency to adequately describe its requirements. The preference for a firm fixed type contract is influenced by various factors. other than the enormous costs associated with other types of contracts. One of the main factors contributing to this preference is the significant increase in federal obligations in other types of contracts. This increase is accompanied by the lack of a clear and complete picture of the use of cost reimbursement contracts by the federal government. In fact, a significant increase in federal obligations has been reported for contracts involving the use of combined strategies. Second, the government appears to prefer firm fixed type contracts due to the recent decision to eliminate the use of combined strategies. This decision was made as part of initiatives to improve the efficiency of all new contract awards beginning in fiscal year 2010 (“Extent of Federal Sending,” 2009). Third, the preference for a firm fixed type contract was motivated by the difficulties encountered in determining the justifications for using other types of contracts..