Here's an article by Steve Kelman just published in Federal Computer Week. I've always been surprised why more agencies haven't tried this. If I was a program manager and discovered I had a way to get a new system developed to replace some old, obsolete, and costly system or process at no cost, I would jump at the chance.

http://fcw.com/articles/2009/10/19/comment...in-savings.aspx

I advise caution with this program. In the late 90s I was involved in a program that investigated using this approach with the part of OMB that deals with share in savings. What is not generally known is that the part of OMB dealing with Agency Budgets finds out there is savings to be had and cuts the Agency budget where the share in savings program is and does not allow the savings to go back to the Program or Agency. So if you wonder why more program managers do not use this it is beacuse they don't want the program/Agency having its budget cut. Perhaps things have changed with this concept since the late 90s but I am skeptical of share in savings.

These complex contracts are too difficult for the average contracting officer and the ones that are capable already have too many contracts to be trying an time consuming experiment. Most requirements are too vague for a contractor to take the risk and few agencies will be able to properly calculate the savings. Then there is always a program official who just plain wants to short change the contractor just like there are contractors who want to rip off the Government. There would have to be time consuming objective formulas figured out and written into the contract and I don't see that happening very often.

I am so busy already that this boggles my mind.