Page 36 - FCW, July/August 2018

TheLectern Iterative development and
new vendors
Beyond one-off engagements, another important potential use of microcon- sulting is to procure larger efforts iteratively through a series of micro- consulting contracts in which each contract represents some incremental progress in the spirit of agile software development.
That approach could appeal to agencies and vendors for a number of reasons. For example, micropur- chase regulations allow for govern- ment evaluation of a contractor’s past performance with no formal systems, data gathering or appeals, making it easier for a new contractor to devel- op a past-performance record. Cairns said new vendors might price their offerings aggressively to increase their chances of being selected and give them the opportunity to develop a past-performance record. The prac- tice frequently occurs in the commer- cial world when contactors are trying to enter a market against incumbents.
Furthermore, the culture of the tra- ditional system assumes that any one project will be lost in a sea of other work, creating a culture that doesn’t value saving money. By contrast, projects that are born small create a cost-saving environment. Microcon- sulting is likely to disrupt by putting pressures on traditional contractors to deliver with fewer bodies and less time.
That is a big plus for microcon- sulting, and now another benefit looms just as large: encouraging new entrants into the federal mar- ketplace. New vendors could win small jobs with small proposals with- out having to comply with complex special requirements. And under the micropurchase regulations, a vendor would not need to be registered in the government’s System for Award Management.
In fact, micropurchases might be the only way for some new contrac-
tors to enter the federal marketplace, at least as prime contractors. Few agencies would be willing to take a chance on giving a large contract to a vendor with no past performance, but micropurchases represent a digestible bite for agencies.
Cairns cited other advantages to microconsulting: It provides an
If agencies follow the micropurchase language of the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
they do not need to solicit and evaluate proposals.
opportunity for niche specialists to get work that might be harder to win as part of large traditional contracts. And in the gig economy, some profes- sionals find working on a large num- ber of small projects more attractive than being tethered to big ones for a long time. Finally, it is typically easier to clearly explain a small requirement than a larger one.
“For a $25 million job, it’s hard to find definable criteria,” Cairns said. “In a microconsulting solicitation, it is easier to make it clear to me as a vendor what [the clients] are looking for.” It reduces miscommunication and improves performance.
Addressing agency concerns
Some agencies might be concerned that microconsulting will lead to high- er administrative costs because they are engaging in multiple small procure- ments instead of one big procurement. There are also concerns about the cost of developing 10 separate require- ments for 10 microconsulting efforts in a similar area.
However, if the choice is between developing the single, highly detailed requirement of waterfall software development rather than the less detailed, iterative requirements of agile development, the cost of 10 itera- tive requirements, which might only require incremental changes, could be less than the cost of developing one big requirement.
Alternatively, under an existing large contract, the government might get the contractor started with general directions and provide ad hoc changes as the work proceeds. The administra- tive costs might be less than a more formalized development of 10 specific requirements, but one should not exag- gerate the difference.
In either case, the government must take the time to consider what it will be asking the contractor to do over time and then negotiate those activities with the contractor. And, of course, there are benefits to being more spe- cific in terms of the likely quality of the work.
Moreover, if agencies follow the micropurchase language of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, they do not need to solicit and evaluate proposals.
If an agency chooses to do so (which I suspect will increasingly occur as microconsulting spreads), evaluating responses to 10 proposals of the sort the VA has been receiving will likely cost less than evaluating one large proposal under the FAR, which also requires preparing reports for a source-selection official.
Microconsulting is just getting start- ed, but I predict that we’ll be hearing a lot more about it. n
Steve Kelman is a professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former admin- istrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. His blog can be found at fcw.com/thelectern.
32
July/August 2018 FCW.COM