Re: reusability

[royer@savax.UUCP (tom royer)]

In article <8703141928.AA20877@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, BENNETT@sp.unisys.COM writes:
> Having just read the two dissertations on reusability
> submitted by Mr. Berard, I find myself wondering about a
> couple of things.
> 
> First, it seems to me that the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract
> is not, in itself a barrier to the development and use of


CPFF contracts might, indeed, provide a vehicle for developing
reusable software, provided that the acquisiton agency (the DoD)
was willing to pay for improved reusability and reduced cost
for the next contract.

The tendency of government contractors to overrun software development
(and other) contracts has, however, inclined the DoD toward the
Firm Fixed Price contract (rightly or wrongly -- that's another
discussion) in which the contractor is locked to an estimated price
which must be the lowest of those submitted by the bidders.  In
this fixed cost environment, there is little incentive on the part of
a contractor program manager to invest the added cost or schedule
necessary to produce truly reusable software since the benefits
will be reaped by the guy with the next contract, not by him.  Furthermore,
the contractor itself has little to gain by encouraging its program
managers to build such systems unless and until the DoD makes reusability
and long-term life cycle cost a part of the proposal selection criteria.