Jump to content

FAC-C-DS certification


formerfed

Recommended Posts

OFPP and the US Digital Services started an IT/Digital Training program a couple years ago.  It leads to an FAC-C-DS certification which now is required to conduct an IT acquisition over $7 million in value.

https://techfarhub.cio.gov/initiatives/ditap/

While it’s easy for someone experienced in IT contracting to find faults, I think the program is effective and sorely needed.  There are so many examples of poorly conducted IT contracting efforts over the years by people who know little about IT, this kind of training helps substantially.  

I just hope the program and associated training keeps getting refined and improved based on experiences, lessons learned, and impact on new technology and processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a somewhat different take on agile, see this from the Harvard Business Review: "Have We Taken Agile Too Far?"

https://hbr.org/2021/04/have-we-taken-agile-too-far

and this from Forbes, "The End of Agile"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/08/23/the-end-of-agile/?sh=729718472071

and this from TechBeacon, "8 Reasons To Ditch Agile"

https://techbeacon.com/app-dev-testing/8-reasons-ditch-agile

I could provide links to many more such articles.

DoD is the darnedest behind-the-power-curve outfit in America. I know that if DAU is touting something, as in the article formerfed recalled, they are likely doing it uncritically, just to get on the bandwagon. I know that if an assistant secretary or any other political appointee is touting something, they'll leave office before it flops and fizzles out.

Do you know the best way to a successful project or program? Hire smart, experienced, competent, wily, and relentless people, give them money, and get out of their way. That's what we did on the Manhattan Project, the Polaris Program, the SR-71, and the Apollo Program, which were great successes.

But we haven't been able to repeat those successes reliably, probably because we have come to believe in full and open competition, essay-test "technical proposals," and "best value" source selection, which is how we got all the failed programs you have read about. Get rid of that stuff, hire good people following market research and rational competition (instead of "full and open"), and then get out of their way, and we'll have a better chance to do IT acquisition successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

TechBeacon, "8 Reasons To Ditch Agile"

Synopsis: "we've sold this recycled crap to the last willing customer, "six-sigma" is so last decade, "waterfall" has already been used, and we need a steady revenue stream for the next decade."  

My money is on "Equitable Computing" or something equally meaningless but appealing to the political class.

I recall how DoD had just figured out after years of trying how to implement EDI transaction sets at the exact time the market was moving to xml.  It is uncanny how DoD ALWAYS adopts technologies right at their nadir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don’t disagree that the government is often late in adopting new concepts.  Then when they do, it gets oversold and pushed into areas sometimes where it doesn’t belong.  Agile is a perfect example.  It can work well in certain situations but it won’t in others.  It seems the government wants to apply it everywhere once the bandwagon got going.

But what I meant by the original post is I’m glad the government recognized the need for IT acquisition training.  Apart from Agile, there are lots of nuances about IT that many contracting people aren’t familiar with.  Their CIO or IT offices come up with a need for contracting a new requirement and the assigned contract specialist and contracting officer often don’t have a clue on how to proceed.  There are commodities in the IT field that require detailed familiarity with both their technical nature and means to acquire that are totally different from what most 1102s are exposed with.

Commodities like telecommunications, cloud computing, software as a service, platform as a service, cybersecurity, license agreements, and Agile are all unique.  Pricing among competitors and ensuring your evaluation model allows for realistic comparisons as well as producing valid lifecycle cost projections are a huge challenge.  But that’s why I think this training is sorely needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some acquisitions are too specialized for generalists.

IT contracting should be a specialty field. IT contracting officers and contract specialists should receive special education and training.

Other specialty fields are:

  1. Construction and architect-engineer contracting
  2. Research and systems development (military and space)
  3. Other research and development
  4. Long-term support services

If we had real leadership in the government we would have more and better education and training and fewer fads like performance-based acquisition and agile. The government would be the lead dog on the sled team instead of the last and have a better view of the way ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vern Edwards Occasionally the concept of specialized corps comes up where knowledgeable contracting staff from a governmentwide pool are sent to individual agencies.  When agencies have a need for a complex acquisitions like major construction or large IT development, members of the corp team get assigned to the agency to lead and conduct the project.

A lot can be said for that.  I don’t think that will ever happen because individual agencies don’t want to lose control and have “outsiders” doing work they can’t dictate how it’s done.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Occasionally the concept of specialized corps comes up where knowledgeable contracting staff from a governmentwide pool are sent to individual agencies.  When agencies have a need for a complex acquisitions like major construction or large IT development, members of the corp team get assigned to the agency to lead and conduct the project.

I like that idea.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

I don’t think that will ever happen because individual agencies don’t want to lose control and have “outsiders” doing work they can’t dictate how it’s done.   

I think that's true.

We're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 12:51 PM, formerfed said:

the concept of specialized corps

A couple of examples of where the idea is in practice but not for IT.   FAI's Contingency Contracting Corps and the National Interagency Fire Center.

On 4/29/2022 at 2:57 PM, Vern Edwards said:

I think that's true.

Not saying the examples suggest it can work even with the examples cooperation between the agencies is in constant churn of refinement based on changing laws, regulations, policies and ideals of leadership.   Really not much different than that of what an individual agency goes through the denominator just gets a lot bigger.   Yet the examples do represent success stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@Vern Edwards Much of the material the contractor is teaching in the DITAP course for FAC-C-DS is downright wrongful.  The following is an excerpt from our class readings:

"Negotiations can be conducted in both sole source and competitive acquisitions. In a sole source acquisition, the FAR calls these exchanges “negotiations”; in competitive acquisitions, the FAR refers to them as “discussions.” In this lesson, we'll use the term “negotiations” to apply to both situations."

The test questions are predicated on these wrongful answers.  Therefore, you can either read their material and answer the questions factually incorrect, but right as far as the grading guide is concerned, or answer them correctly, get a lower score, resting assured you have answered accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Much of the material the contractor is teaching in the DITAP course for FAC-C-DS is downright wrongful.  The following is an excerpt from our class readings:

"Negotiations can be conducted in both sole source and competitive acquisitions. In a sole source acquisition, the FAR calls these exchanges “negotiations”; in competitive acquisitions, the FAR refers to them as “discussions.” In this lesson, we'll use the term “negotiations” to apply to both situations."

Hmmm. What part of the quote is wrong? FAR 15.306(d) states:

Quote

(d) Exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range. Negotiations are exchanges, in either a competitive or sole source environment, between the Government and offerors, that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. These negotiations may include bargaining. Bargaining includes persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract. When negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and are called discussions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@Vern Edwards, et al.:

I think most of us can agree that federal contracting, as it is currently practiced across government, is broken.  Below is the Agile Manifesto signed by 17 professed IT subject matter experts.  I am interested in the forum's opinion as to which, if any, of these principles is worth pursuing in the context of federal acquisitions?  Which of them might be compatible with the statutes, regulations, agency supplements, court decisions and administrative case law that govern and influence our methods as 1102s?

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

[end of citation]

I just successfully completed the 96 hours of classroom training for the DITAP course required for the FAC-C-DS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...