Despite long-standing practices of writing extremely detailed requirements into government contracts, there’s no law that says it has to be this way.
That’s the concept Steve Kehlman of FCW examines in his post on contracting for Agile — does the language in the Federal Acquisition Regulation allow agencies to stick to high-level and broad statements of objectives so that iterative Agile processes can unfold as the work is accomplished?
It seems to me the solicitation for an agile task order can easily meet what the regulation asks by doing exactly what the language says, and describing the kinds of services the agile contractor will perform.
If, as the TechFAR recommends . . . the solicitation also states what process will be used to refine the government’s requirements after the task order is issued, you ensure impartiality by telling the players the rules of the road. Equally important, you avoid the debilitating and costly inefficiencies, the delays and rework that come with trying to guess the solution in painstaking detail before you really know what you need. In other words, you meet both goals that taxpayers demand of a good public procurement system: impartiality and efficiency!
Read the full article: Contracting for agile | FCW