- Under a deliverables-based structure, the parties agree on a defined scope of work and a fixed price for delivering it.
- Under a time-and-materials (T&M) structure, the client pays based on the hours actually worked, at agreed rates, plus the cost of any materials or expenses.
- Neither model eliminates risk — it just decides which party carries which kind.
When an Ontario business hires a contractor, consultant, or agency, one of the earliest decisions is how the engagement will be priced: a deliverables-based (fixed-price) agreement, where the client pays a set amount for defined outcomes, or a time-and-materials agreement, where the client pays for actual hours worked and materials used.
The choice is about more than accounting. It determines who absorbs the risk if a project takes longer or costs more than expected — and that risk allocation should be a deliberate decision, not an accident of whichever template got used.
Deliverables-Based (Fixed-Price) Agreements
Under a deliverables-based structure, the parties agree on a defined scope of work and a fixed price for delivering it. The provider is paid the agreed amount, often in milestone instalments, once specified deliverables are completed and accepted — regardless of how many hours it actually took to produce them.
This model puts pressure on getting the scope right upfront, because the price doesn't move even if the work turns out to be harder than expected.
Time-and-Materials Agreements
Under a time-and-materials (T&M) structure, the client pays based on the hours actually worked, at agreed rates, plus the cost of any materials or expenses. There is no fixed final price — the total cost depends on how long the work actually takes.
This model is common where the scope is genuinely uncertain at the outset, or where the work is expected to evolve as it progresses.
Who Bears the Risk Under Each Model
| Deliverables-Based | Time-and-Materials | |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of scope being harder than expected | Provider absorbs it (price is fixed) | Client absorbs it (client pays for however long it takes) |
| Cost predictability for the client | High — known price upfront | Lower — final cost depends on actual hours |
| Provider's incentive | Complete efficiently, since extra hours cut into profit | Less pressure to work efficiently, since hours are billed directly |
| Best suited to | Well-defined, stable scope | Evolving, exploratory, or hard-to-scope work |
Neither model eliminates risk — it just decides which party carries which kind.
When a Deliverables-Based Structure Makes Sense
- The scope of work can be defined clearly and in detail before work starts
- The client needs cost certainty for budgeting purposes
- The deliverables can be objectively assessed against agreed acceptance criteria
- The work is similar to projects the provider has completed before, making the price easier to estimate accurately
When Time-and-Materials Makes Sense
- The scope is genuinely uncertain, exploratory, or likely to change as the work unfolds
- The client wants ongoing flexibility to redirect effort without renegotiating a fixed price every time priorities shift
- The engagement is more like ongoing support or advisory work than a discrete project with a clear end point
- Both parties are comfortable with variable, rather than fixed, total cost
Hybrid Structures
Many Ontario service agreements don't pick one model exclusively. Two common hybrids:
- Capped, or "not-to-exceed," time-and-materials. The client pays for actual hours worked, but the provider agrees not to bill beyond an agreed ceiling without prior client approval — giving the client a budget backstop while keeping the flexibility of hourly billing.
- Milestone deliverables with time-and-materials change orders. The core project is priced as fixed deliverables, but anything outside the original scope is billed separately on a time-and-materials basis through a defined change-order process.
Contract Terms That Matter More Under Each Model
- Deliverables-based agreements need a precisely defined scope, objective acceptance criteria for each deliverable, and a clear change-order process for anything added after signing — without these, disputes over what was actually promised are common.
- Time-and-materials agreements need a clear rate schedule, defined invoicing and reporting frequency, and — in most cases — a not-to-exceed cap or a requirement for client approval before exceeding an estimated budget, so costs don't run away unchecked.
Frequently asked questions
Which pricing model is cheaper overall?
Neither is inherently cheaper — the total cost depends on how the project actually goes. A fixed price can end up higher than time-and-materials would have been if the work turns out simpler than expected, since the provider priced in a risk premium, or lower if the work turns out harder, since the provider absorbs the overrun.
Can one agreement combine both pricing models?
Yes. Hybrid structures — a capped time-and-materials arrangement, or fixed-price deliverables with time-and-materials change orders — are common precisely because they let the parties allocate risk differently across different parts of the same engagement.
What happens if a deliverables-based project runs over budget for the provider?
Generally, the provider absorbs that cost, since the price was fixed regardless of the hours it actually takes — unless the overrun is caused by the client expanding the original scope, in which case a proper change-order process should address the additional cost.
Is a "not-to-exceed" time-and-materials contract the same as a fixed-price contract?
No. A not-to-exceed clause sets a ceiling on what the client will pay, but the client still only pays for actual hours worked up to that ceiling — it could end up costing less than the cap. A true fixed-price contract charges the agreed amount regardless of how few or many hours the work actually took.
This is a corporate question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.