The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
  • Home
  • Training & Education
  • Services
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for 18F

December 6, 2017 By AMK

Improving government outcomes through an agile contract format

Although it doesn’t get as much attention in the conversation around improving government acquisitions, one area that really does matter is the style of solicitation documents.

The format and structure of contracts has a huge impact on vendor participation, the competition process, finding qualified vendors, and, therefore, contract outcomes. When I started as a contract specialist, I was given hand-me-downs of past solicitations. It’s a fairly common practice to start the acquisition process by asking others for their documents, or just searching the internet or document repositories like FedBizOpps to replace names and dates.

Unfortunately, this practice means new contracts often repeat the shortcomings that are inherent in the structure of previous contracts. To improve outcomes, contracting officers should move away from these habits in favor of something that better fits the work to be done. The Technology Transformation Services’ Office of Acquisition has been developing an Agile Contract Format (ACF) to produce simple, effective contracts that also take advantage of post-award agile methods.

The role of the Uniform Contract Format

If you’ve ever been involved in the government acquisition process, you’ve almost certainly encountered the Uniform Contract Format (UCF), whether you realize it or not. Though the UCF is common, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) only requires the use of the UCF to create a solicitation in very limited circumstances — mainly FAR Part 15. For almost any type of IT acquisition, using FAR Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiation should be avoided at all cost. Using the UCF in conjunction with FAR Part 15 is the reason why so many government acquisitions involve a timeline of 18 to 24 months when another format could be much faster.

Using the UCF for a contract causes the government to issue solicitations thicker than great works of literature, but far less enjoyable. The crux of the problem rests with the UCF’s use of a Statement of Work (SOW) to describe the government’s need, or what acquisition professionals call the “requirements.” SOWs are the least desirable format for the government to communicate its requirements for industry’s services because it tells companies how to do something not what needs to be done. Making SOWs prescriptive rather than descriptive, is like telling a doctor what surgery you want before there’s even been a diagnosis. Additionally, SOWs don’t account for pivots or design changes based on user feedback. What this usually means is that the government tries to imagine everything that may possibly happen or be needed and add it to the UCF’s SOW like a wish list.

An advantage of agile work methods is that they focus on discovering a solution to a problem after the contract is awarded, that is, during post-award execution, rather than specifying the detailed solution up front as with Part 15. An agile contract tries to specify problems requiring detailed solutions, often as Product Backlog Items that describe high level contract delivery areas.

Understanding this problem, the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Federal Procurement Policy directed agencies to stop using SOWs and shift to using a Performance Work Statement (PWS) for acquiring services. A PWS “should state requirements in general terms of what (result) is to be done, rather than how (method) it is done” Good contracting officers advise agencies that by buying expert services, it implies that you’re not the most knowledgeable in “how” work is done. As the mission owner, you are the expert in “what,” must get accomplished, but conflating the two puts your mission at risk and makes it harder for a contract to provide value.

Rather than make this substantive shift from how to what, some government buyers just retitle their old Statements of Work to be a “Performance Work Statement.” This helps agencies comply with oversight mandates, but doesn’t actually change the nature of their requests to industry. The length and complexity remains the same, so industry continues to lose time and effort just getting through documents to try and understand what the government wants from it. The government gets to be in the perennial position of saying, “That’s not what I wanted.” There’s an easier way to get started, especially when it comes to agile development.

What the Agile Contract Format (ACF) improves

Contracting officers can avoid the negative side effects of using SOWs by instead structuring solicitations into Statements of Objectives (SOO). Despite being around for a long time, SOOs are infrequently used across government even though they make it much easier to write solicitations that center on outcomes instead of process. A SOO is the core of the ACF.

A SOO is:

A summary of key agency goals, outcomes, or both, that is incorporated into performance-based service acquisitions so that competitors may propose their solutions, including a technical approach, performance standards, and a quality assurance surveillance plan based upon commercial business practices.

FAR 37.602(c) provides that a SOO only requires a few sections:

  1. Purpose;
  2. Scope or mission;
  3. Period and place of performance;
  4. Background;
  5. Performance objectives, i.e., required results; and
  6. Any operating constraints.

By focusing on the information that vendors need to deliver, a TTS project team is able to rapidly discover discrete chunks of value for developing useful software features.

How to make an ACF

At 18F, we typically do our work in four person teams comprised of an agile coach, product lead, technical lead, and contracting lead. This team works together from start to finish. The cross-functional nature allows each group to write documents collaboratively, as opposed to waiting on input from other teams.

We meet with the agency we’re partnering with for a multi-day workshop that is designed with three objectives in mind:

  1. Establish a baseline of vocabulary and knowledge about agile product development methods.
  2. Create initial, high-level user personas and a product backlog that describes the major features of the system to be built and identify the scope of the first modular contract.
  3. Create a draft of the first solicitation.

At the end, we get something that looks like this:

SOO Section Agile Output
Scope or mission Product Vision or MVP Statement
Performance objectives, i.e., required results Product Backlog
Any operating constraints Non-functional Requirements or Definition of Done

At the end of the workshop, there is a draft solicitation ready for release. We go from a process that people typically expect will take months to something that takes a few days.

Learning the hard way

I’ve been a contract specialist for over five years now, and I’ve been involved in awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in contract awards. Awarding contracts for waterfall IT projects has been the norm despite incredibly low success rates in terms of cost, schedule, and performance. Using the same traditional contract methods for agile methods is inappropriate and unnecessarily burdensome. To fix this, all you need are a few adjustments already available from the FAR.

Instead of years and back and forth, by going through agile workshops and using the ACF for solicitations, we can finish the requirements gathering and drafting parts of the acquisition process in days with value being delivered in months not years.

Towards better contracting

Delivery is the strategy here at the TTS Office of Acquisition. The contract is the means not the end. Writing down every possible future requirement you can think of can feel like it reduces risk and ensures the project will succeed. But that’s not borne out by the evidence of years of government contracting.

This is one piece towards a broader method of contracting for agile development services. Through this method, you can save time, reduce risk, improve quality, and avoid agilefall by allowing industry to apply their expertise. That’s why you’re contracting in the first place.

If you’re looking for examples we’ve done to date go here, and if you’re interested in chatting with TTS on how we may be able to help email us at inquiries18F@gsa.gov.

Source: https://18f.gsa.gov/2017/11/30/improving-government-outcomes-through-an-agile-contract-format/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: 18F, acquisition reform, agile, FAR, outcome, performance based acquisition, procurement reform, SOO, SOW, statement of objectives, statement of work, UCF, uniform contract format, work statement

November 20, 2017 By AMK

The quest to strengthen the acquisition workforce

Fewer taxpayer dollars are wasted when federal acquisition professionals are well trained to manage government contracts.

Every day, federal government employees work diligently to help government agencies serve the public. One specialized group has dedicated their careers to helping build and manage the contracts with suppliers that sell goods and services to the government. They must navigate through a maze of regulations, field endless customer requirements, and conquer a constant stream of contracts that help the U.S. government do its work. These are the workers in the federal government acquisition ecosystem. With their help, the U.S. government buys and manages technology projects smarter, more efficiently, and with greater returns on investment.

To keep pace with fast-changing technology, the government must enable its acquisition workforce to quickly adapt and pivot for project success.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2017/11/The-Quest-to-Strengthen-the-Acquisition-Workforce

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: 18F, acquisition training, acquisition workforce, GSA, OFPP, OMB, Procuremenati, TechFAR Hub, training

July 13, 2017 By AMK

Special Counsel backs whistleblower, says GSA ‘grossly mismanaged’ tech funds

The Office of Special Counsel has announced that it had reached a settlement with the General Services Administration on behalf of recently resigned Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Tom Sharpe.

The office said GSA “had grossly mismanaged its Technology Transformation Service” as described in a GSA report that OSC has forwarded to Congress and the White House, the special counsel having judged the response of the Obama administration’s GSA to Sharpe’s whistleblower disclosures to be “unreasonable.”

Sharpe resigned abruptly from the agency in June (his job is now occupied by Alan Thomas) just as the GSA inspector general was reporting that Sharpe had earlier made “protected disclosures” about “concerns of violations of law, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds and abuse of authority” to former GSA Administrator Denise Turner Roth, the former deputy administrator, the former General Counsel, and the OIG.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2017/07/special-counsel-backs-whistleblower-says-gsa-grossly-mismanaged-tech-funds/139221/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: 18F, GSA, management, mismanagement, Special Counsel, Technology Transformation Service, TTS, whistleblower

January 19, 2017 By AMK

Ohio launches highly anticipated 18F-style RFP

Ohio launched a new kind of RFP Jan. 5 aimed at improving participation on the part of smaller cloud-based analytics companies.

Government Technology first reported on the effort in early December, when state CIO Stu Davis outlined his goal of not only streamlining IT procurements within state government, but also making state contracts accessible to lesser-known service providers.

According to the state’s procurement opportunity website, an inquiry period will be open until Feb. 3, and bids will be opened by the state on Feb. 17. The website lists the estimated award date as March 17.

Davis said last December that he had informally partnered with 18F, the digital federal consultancy within the General Services Administration (GSA), for advice on how to better align state resources under the Ohio Department of Administrative Services’ purview.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govtech.com/data/Ohio-Launches-Highly-Anticipated-18F-Style-RFP.html

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: 18F, acquisition reform, agile, GSA, innovation, IT, procurement reform, streamlined acquisition process, technology

December 26, 2016 By AMK

8 companies protest $1.5 billion DHS agile buying experiment

A new Homeland Security Department (DHS) program promoting agile software development has hit a stumbling block.

DHS logoThe $1.54 billion Flexible Agile Support for the Homeland contract vehicle — a group of 13 vendors pre-approved to sell agile services to the department — has been halted by protests from at least eight companies not included on that list.

Washington Technology first reported the protests.

INTEGRITYOne Partners, Harmonia Holdings Group, Cybermedia Technologies, Brillient Corp., Citizant, Ventera Corp., Incentive Technology Group and BC Digital Services filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Though Congress let GAO’s authority over civilian task orders worth more than $10 million lapse in September, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed into a law a bill that makes the authority permanent.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2016/12/8-companies-protest-15b-dhs-agile-buying-experiment/133946

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: 18F, agile, award protest, bid protest, DHS, FLASH, GAO, GSA, IT, pilot, protest, software, task order, technology

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 6
  • Next Page »

Popular Topics

abuse acquisition reform acquisition strategy acquisition training acquisition workforce Air Force Army AT&L bid protest budget budget cuts competition cybersecurity DAU DFARS DHS DoD DOJ FAR fraud GAO Georgia Tech GSA GSA Schedule GSA Schedules IG industrial base information technology innovation IT Justice Dept. Navy NDAA OFPP OMB OTA Pentagon procurement reform protest SBA sequestration small business spending technology VA
Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter

Search this Website

Copyright © 2022 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute