Dan - OTAs are designed to provide the simplicity and flexibility, yet many apply FAR/DFARS clauses for a variety of reasons. Some out of muscle memory, some frozen middle demands, and some based on Congressional direction. COs/AOs need to continue to assess what makes sense for the individual effort and keep the burdens to a minimum to encourage broad interest.
What specifically in 4022 are you referring to as FAR/DFAR requirement?
Pete - The url you referred to is written by lawyers, for lawyers. It would take a long time to analyze the consequences of the many links within.
I am an Engineer, I don’t speak legalese well, but I have attended seminars and webinars about OTA Contracts which indicated that these were commercial contracts. As CEO of a non-traditional (very) small business with a “prototype project … directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components”, a commercial OTA contract is sought.
Current offerings of interest specify DD2345, PIEE, SPRS, many CDRLs, questionable data rights, and other FAR/DFARS type requirements. These pre-award administrative requirements are burdens to performance by small business innovators.
Great article. Middle Tier Acquisition and Software Acquisition Pathway are great......until the test and cyber community get involved. Test and Cyber gatekeepers thrive and have power in a waterfall, traditional acquisition approaches and they are doing all they can to stymie projects in Middle Tier Acquisition and Software Acquisition Pathway. Additionally, we have been talking about cyber reciprocity for years. It does not exist because there is an industry around "doing more" cyber. We need a Sr. DoD Official to bring in Cyber AO (B) and ask them why they think Cyber AO (A) is endangering the DoD network.
HP appreciate the feedback and insight. We need to continue to work with the test, cyber, and related functional communities to tailor and modernize their processes for modern software development and rapid prototyping. Need to balance speed with rigor.
For additional reading, I strongly recommend Hack Your Bureaucracy by Marina Nitze and Nick Sinai.
https://amzn.to/3GUHMvu
Is this why "commercial" Prototype OTAs under 10 USC 2371 (4022) are specifying FAR/DFARS requirements?
Dan - OTAs are designed to provide the simplicity and flexibility, yet many apply FAR/DFARS clauses for a variety of reasons. Some out of muscle memory, some frozen middle demands, and some based on Congressional direction. COs/AOs need to continue to assess what makes sense for the individual effort and keep the burdens to a minimum to encourage broad interest.
What specifically in 4022 are you referring to as FAR/DFAR requirement?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4022
Pete - The url you referred to is written by lawyers, for lawyers. It would take a long time to analyze the consequences of the many links within.
I am an Engineer, I don’t speak legalese well, but I have attended seminars and webinars about OTA Contracts which indicated that these were commercial contracts. As CEO of a non-traditional (very) small business with a “prototype project … directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components”, a commercial OTA contract is sought.
Current offerings of interest specify DD2345, PIEE, SPRS, many CDRLs, questionable data rights, and other FAR/DFARS type requirements. These pre-award administrative requirements are burdens to performance by small business innovators.
Pete,
Your liking my comment is appreciated.
There is a lot that I will not memorialize on the internet.
Let me know if you would like to talk.
Dan
Great article. Middle Tier Acquisition and Software Acquisition Pathway are great......until the test and cyber community get involved. Test and Cyber gatekeepers thrive and have power in a waterfall, traditional acquisition approaches and they are doing all they can to stymie projects in Middle Tier Acquisition and Software Acquisition Pathway. Additionally, we have been talking about cyber reciprocity for years. It does not exist because there is an industry around "doing more" cyber. We need a Sr. DoD Official to bring in Cyber AO (B) and ask them why they think Cyber AO (A) is endangering the DoD network.
HP appreciate the feedback and insight. We need to continue to work with the test, cyber, and related functional communities to tailor and modernize their processes for modern software development and rapid prototyping. Need to balance speed with rigor.