[Zigurd]

The problem isn't with the requirement for fixed-time, fixed-bid contracts. The problem is that agile methods and tools, and all the advantages they carry, are incompatible with those requirements: You can't start fast with minimal specs. You can't apply what's been learned along the way unless, miraculously, it costs less and takes less time. You can't make changes to suit changing business goals without a major negotiation on change orders. You can't access most of the benefits of agile inside that box.

You CAN, however, find contract developers who have mastered the art of faking agile methods and being buzzword compliant while delivering no feedback that prevents you from having bad ideas implemented in bad ways.

You will also find contractors that will lead you down the garden path. You could call them "half agile." They won't warn you that you are asking for something dumb, or unworkable. They will treat your mistakes as revenue enhancement opportunities and lay on the agile talk pretty thick.

This is why the "no true agile Scotsman" argument is so easy to make: That's not agile. You have the wrong people. You fail at agile. That's an easy case to prove but it isn't very helpful.

Real agile is hard to do and doing it with compromised ingredients, like using low-bid contractors that want to minimize their effort and/or enhance their revenue, that you have stuffed into a fixed-bid box, is agile poison.