Agile Contracting

What is the "normal" contracting process, and why wouldn't it support agile project management?

"Agile contracting"? I sense a new fad. Just wait til the policymakers hear someone speak those words.

I use "Dexterous Contracting" to handle Agile Project Management.

Agile Contracting:

http://www.agilebok....racting_Methods

http://www.cutter.co...h/apmu0617.html

http://www.infoq.com...agile-contracts

http://www.cornelius...ile-contracting

http://agile.dzone.c...ile-contracting

http://www.agilecontracts.org

http://www.twobirds....nt projects.pdf

There's a lot more. Don't tell OFPP or DPAP.

Okay, my serious response. This isn't a method of 'Contracting' per se but more of company's business processes.

I would like some of these socks with support.

I read several of the articles and it made my head hurt. And I still don't understand it. Maybe I am dense but I probably need a sample SOW/PWS and a sample pricing structure to get it.

Hi, Boof.

I'm researching this myself- the first step seems to be that you just acknowledge that you will never be able define your requirement sufficiently in advance, and are therefore paying your Contractor by the hour (or on a cost reimbursible basis). I don't understand why the normal procurement process can't accomodate this- it seems very simple. There is probably an art to packaging the work via task order that I'm not fully appreciating, but again, nothing that the current processes cannot accomodate.

There are also some claimed efficiencies in consolidating the deliverables (e.g. annotating source code sufficiently enough to eliminate reports) that I don't claim to understand.

Apsofacto

Gee, I posted over a year ago. I didn't expect this topic to be resurrected. Thanks for the added information.

One thing my Agency is definitely good at is awarding work by the hour without knowing what the outcome should be. Nothing like good old Time and Material for those who don't know where they are going.

The last two comments about use of T&M/LH or cost reimbursement contracts are right on the mark. One problem is many agencies over reacted to the mandate to reduce "high risk" contract types. Consequently they want to force everything into fixed price arrangements even when it doesn't make sense.

The existing procurement process is fine. The problem is the existing culture puts up artifical barriers - the push for fixed price contracts for everything, the need for requirements to be precisiely defined before starting out, the need for constant government oversight without meaningful involvement, and the need for delivery of detailed status reports and documentation.

Hello, Boof,

I just recently set up an account with the forums here- should have done that long ago!