Better Government IT

Call for Comments: Mythbusters Initiative

ACT - American Council for Technology, IAC - Industry Advisory Council, Advancing Government Through Collaboration, Education and Action

  BetterGovernmentIT is an initiative sponsored by ACT-IAC with a goal of improving government through the innovative and efficient use of technology.

Mythbusters Initiative

ACT-IAC is continuing our work on Mythbusters by helping to identify the top ten industry-friendly contract strategies.

We have identified a number of specific strategies, and we are collecting more to offer a broad-based industry view of the top ten ideas. Please add your votes and your insights, as well as new initiatives to the discussion. ACT-IAC will provide these results to OFPP for their consideration.

I suggest you ...

Select the appropriate contract type to ensure you are properly allocating risk to each party.

“To an IDIQ program manager, all acquisitions look like a task order.” But there are a variety of acquisition paths – use consideration in selecting the best one.

38 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    ACT-IACAdminACT-IAC (Admin, Better Government IT) shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    4 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Jaime GraciaJaime Gracia commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Not only is it important to match contract type to risk and requirements, but match contract management to type as well. How many times have we seen a FFP contract, especially "performance-based", be managed as a T&M with ceilings for hours and prescribed labor-rates? Eliminates the flexibility and the innovative solutions that the government intended in the first place.

      • DonDon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is at least party about assuming and assigning risk. It subborns true collaboraiton and partnership by trading risk for cost.

      • Noah Nason IIINoah Nason III commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        FFP contracts are doomed to failure when requirements are not specifically known. Yet contracting officers push FFP as it is easy on them and low risk for them (low risk as they can push responsibility for failure to the functional IT staff.) For example, I have seen several FFP contracts for over $4M where there first task was to write the functional description. The actual description of work was two typed pages. This was done despite the objections of the IT staff. The contracts were done well but were way over budget and extremely stress full with lots of time wasted in back and forth negotiations. NASA HQs got it right with a CPAF structure with an excellent performance measurement plan. When you put the contractor’s entire profit at risk and have a good way to determine the award fee you get good services with less stress.

      • Cindy BrockwellCindy Brockwell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I am finding of late that agencies are using PWS with minimal metrics to check the box on Performance based and often FFP contracts. This isn't meaningful to the government in managing the contract to a negotiated set of "real" metrics....mostly they are arbitraily assigned or the contractor is asked to assign them based on their experience...if they don't have experience with this agency, this isn't possible.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base

      Contact Us