The Interdepartmental Conference, far from disapproving or attempting to abolish the cost-plus contract, recognized its necessity, but registered a preference for forms of it which best protected the interests of the people and of the Government. The elemental cost-plus contract obligated the Government to pay manufacturing costs, plus an agreed-upon percentage of the costs as profit. Costs included not only the charges for labor and materials, but also certain overhead and depreciation charges. This contract form was vicious in principle, and the Conference did not approve it. Meanwhile various contracting officers of the Government had been improving the cost-plus contract with provisions which either removed the tendency for the contractor to increase his costs or added inducements to him to keep his costs down. One of these improvements was a cost-plus form providing for a fixed profit to the contractor, regardless of what his costs might be. This form removed the incentive to increase costs. A still further refinement made it of material advantage to a contractor to keep down his costs and penalized the man who was careless about costs. In this form the Government agreed to pay all costs and a fixed profit, but the contract also fixed in advance an estimated unit price for the product, this price being known as “bogey,” a term borrowed from the ancient and honorable game of golf. If the contractor succeeded in holding his costs, plus his fixed profit, under the unit bogey price, he was paid a share of the saving. If, however, his costs and profits ran above bogey, then he was penalized a percentage of the excess, the penalty being subtracted from his fixed profit when the War Department came to pay for the supplies. This form not only put a premium upon plant efficiency, but it stimulated the speed of production; for the briefer the factory processes, the smaller the costs, as a rule, and the sooner the contractor would get his money. The Interdepartmental Conference approved both these forms. This was not yet the desideratum of standardization in contracts, but it was a step in that direction and perhaps as much as could be done in an organization as ill-articulated as that of the War Department then was. The Interdepartmental Conference possessed only advisory powers, but it was able to establish a policy for the Government in its contracting function. By pointing to the more desirable forms of contracts, its report was at least a moral force in securing greater uniformity in war contracts. It must be remembered, too, that most of the contracting officers were men of considerable business experience and ability. Many of the leading business men of the country were serving the United States either in uniform or as officers of such agencies as the Council of National Defense and the War Industries Board, and the procurement bureaus had the benefit of their study and advice in the making of contracts.