DEVELOPING: FedStack and Lantec won up to $118M government contract for non-IT training for the Federal Government/IRS - Codesmith will be involved (conflicting reports)
DEVELOPING: FedStack and Lantec won up to $118M government contract for non-IT training for the Federal Government/IRS - Codesmith will be involved (conflicting reports)
Source: https://app.g2xchange.com/FedCiv/posts/smoothstack-obtains-118m-treasury-ocio-non-it-technical-workforce-development-and-training-bp
FedStack is large government contractor.
Lantec is a training company with three locations in Louisiana.
This is a blanket maximum contract and it's unclear what specific services are provided or expected, and what "non-IT training" means.
Codesmith claims here that they won the contract https://www.codesmith.io/federal and made the following statement
"Codesmith now extends its mission to driving tangible impact across the US economy, with the potential to return billions of tax dollars.
Codesmith has proven this thesis true with 5000+ alumni. 90% of graduates get hired within 12 months, most land leadership roles within big tech & AI labs and many directly contribute to the world’s largest open source projects."
\-----
Because of legal advice I can't comment about this at this time and am sharing the raw sources for others to discuss. I can't speculate what this means for any of the companies involved or what this means for Codesmith traditional programs or what Codesmith's role or relationship is with the contract winners FedStack and Lantec.
u/jcl274 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
cool should we nominate michael? 😂
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
Nominate me for what? I'm not sure what this is haha. If you want a job directly with the Federal Government there are background checks and legal processes and you can't just be nominated and chosen by the public to skip those. So anyone guaranteeing a full time job directly with the federal government is scamming you because there are legal processes to follow and there are fixed public pay-scales based on your education etc.... So I'm not sure what exactly this is. A sub-contractor job?
u/jcl274 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
cool should we nominate michael? 😂
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
Someone recently nominated me for something, and I received an email from Codesmith as part of that process. It made me wonder whether the security audit they had previously mentioned was ever completed, since the email raised questions for me given past security concerns that were flagged.
If Codesmith is operating as, or pursuing, federal government contracts, I would expect that to involve standard requirements like regular security audits and SOC 2 compliance. There was also a period in the past where issues were identified involving the handling of applicant data, which I believe have since been addressed.
u/TheWhitingFish wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Mikey is on it again, he just wont stop
u/michaelnovatireplied·
What are you accusing me of exactly for clarity?
u/michaelnovati wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
What are you accusing me of exactly for clarity?
u/michaelnovatireplied·
Still waiting to find out what you are accusing me of and if this was just a harassment comment, officially asking you to stop harassing me.
u/Ill-Rabbit-7386 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
“Anyone guaranteeing full time job directly with the federal government is scamming you”
Are you accusing codesmith or any of the companies listed in this article directly of “scamming”? Because you’re certainly implying this is the case here with a loaded and completely uncorro
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
I have zero idea of what's being offered. I made a statement that having the public nominate me cannot guarantee me a full time job directly with the federal government (i.e. not a contractor, trainee, apprenticeship, etc...)
I was trying to look a bit and this is one of the companies on the contract, and it doesn't sound like it's a positiion directly with the government; [https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/sol/sol20240710](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/sol/sol20240710)
u/Ill-Rabbit-7386 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
That’s an article from 2024. Which looks related only to this announcement because it mentions smoothstack.
And that wasn’t your statement…. You wrote “anyone guaranteeing a full time job directly with govt.. is scamming” (implying the company/companies) not random “public nomin
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited
No one can guarantee you a job directly employed as a full time employee by the Federal government.
That statement as a standalone statement is a fact.
u/Ill-Rabbit-7386 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Link to the third party news source that verifies this “standalone” “fact” and irrefutably links it to this announcement.
Again, I can irrefutably say you aren’t reliable or honest or able to provide any absolute evidence of this fact that “no one”
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
SOURCES (hopefully you can read them because copy pasting all relevant pieces doesn't fit in a comment):
[https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/job-scams](https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/job-scams)
[https://help.usajobs.gov/working-in-government](https://help.usajobs.gov/working-in-government) (USAJobs is the only OFFICIAL federal government job board, other than USPS).
[https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/employment-laws-and-regulations/](https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/employment-laws-and-regulations/) Federal hiring is governed by **5 U.S.C. § 2301**, which establishes that hiring must be determined solely on the basis of ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition.
u/Ill-Rabbit-7386 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Link to the third party news source that verifies this “standalone” “fact” and irrefutably links it to this announcement.
Again, I can irrefutably say you aren’t reliable or honest or able to provide any absolute evidence of this fact that “no one”
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
You also don't have all the information on Codesmith and this is what lawyers can look at.
For example, this is from a private email from Codesmith's current CEO from March 21, 2025: "I do not consider Formation a competitor, it is quite clear to me that our products are different." This was well after I started commenting on Reddit.
u/Ill-Rabbit-7386 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
None of those sources refer to this contracts details. The job board doesn’t mean it’s the only job portal. just the public gateway. Again far from irrefutable and actually confirms you have no zero idea what this contract is but operating disingenuously in how it’s reported and
u/michaelnovatireplied·
I don't believe in my opinion that in the 4 minutes between the timestamps you actually read all the regulations and guides from all three.
You can ask AI to summarize and I'm curious what you find.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Can’t stop won’t stop. It’s exhausting
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
It’s exhausting to have multiple anonymous accounts, many of which present themselves as part of the Codesmith community, repeatedly targeting me in threads where I’m sharing publicly available news, facts, and sources for open discussion.
As I’ve consistently said, and as the record reflects, I’m participating here as an individual, using a single account, expressing my own views. Over the years, I’ve faced sustained antagonism from numerous anonymous accounts, many of which were later suspended or banned by Reddit.
It’s worth noting that what gets characterized as “hundreds of comments” largely comes from a small number of long-running threads where I’ve declined to disengage simply because the information is uncomfortable. I want to find common ground with people I strongly disagree with. My commentary reflects my interpretation of observable market conditions and operational developments, not a personal campaign and not a marketing campaign.
If people affiliated with Codesmith disagree with my conclusions, that’s fine. What’s not productive is mischaracterizing my motives or attempting to undermine my reputation rather than engaging with the substance of the discussion.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
It’s really not a mischaracterization. If we discussed tomatoes you’d bring it back to Codesmith. It’s sad man. The fact that you’re constantly bringing it up. I feel bad for you. Sorry man, whatever motivates you is sad. But you be you. Best of luck, we’re not anonymous people a
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
This situation has been presented publicly in a one-sided way that omits material context.
I have been characterized as a competitor who harmed a coding bootcamp. However, months earlier, that bootcamp’s CEO stated to me in writing that she did not consider our companies competitors and that our products were different.
I also raised concerns about security practices and the handling of sensitive personal information. Those concerns required multiple follow-ups, and an audit was discussed. There was later a publicly observable disruption to their AWS access. While I did not cause that disruption; I raised issues related to engineering oversight and security hygiene that were unaddressed flags .
I have been subjected to serious and false accusations, including claims of stalking and other misconduct. My personal email was circulated, and I was subsequently subscribed to unsolicited and inappropriate content (i.e. porn and extreme newsletters). An individual making “stalking” allegation was engaged in public-facing activities, including media appearances and my public comments addressed a potential conflict of interest based solely on publicly available information. Characterizing that as “stalking” is inaccurate and damaging to my reputation.
I spoke directly with Codesmith’s CEO to explain my actions and concerns transparently. Despite that conversation, a blog post was later published with her participation that omitted this context and presented disputed allegations as settled facts.
My comments have been based on observable facts and documented communications, with opinions clearly separated from verifiable information. I participate using a single Reddit account.
Gullible\_Mousse, despite your claims of insider knowledge and your public advice that people should not attend Codesmith, you clearly do not have access to the full context. Making broad public judgments on that basis is unfair and contributes to reputational harm.
Finally, regardless of views on my commentary, Codesmith’s business outcomes are driven by broader market conditions and its own operational decisions. That conclusion has been examined by legal counsel and is supported by public data and industry-wide trends, not by blog posts and narratives about any one individual.
If anonymous accounts were required to disclose who they are, how many of these pile-ons would still happen? And how different would this subreddit and Codesmith’s subreddit, with its history of bans look? The level of pushback I receive for raising these questions and calling attention to transparency is disgusting at a time where the world needs more honest and transparent information flow.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
“This situation has been presented publicly in a one-sided way that omits material context” - a quote from Michael the man was a Reddit mod for the largest industry sub and for years presented post after post of one sided information that omitted material context.
Michael, you’v
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
I participated actively on the subreddit from around May 2022 to the present, and I served as a moderator from approximately March 2024 to October 2025.
Someone asked: 'If he’s been doing this for years, why didn’t Codesmith say anything?' That’s a fair question. In March 2024, Eric Kirsten emailed me: “With regards to your posts re Codesmith, I generally don’t have any issue with them.”
If Codesmith’s leadership now believes my conduct was problematic. Responsibility for that breakdown rests beyond me.
Instead, information was later presented publicly in a way that I believe lacks important context and portrays my actions and motives inaccurately. In my view, this approach is unfortunate and unnecessary. I strongly disagree with how this situation has been characterized and with the conclusions drawn from it.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Also despite your claims of insider knowledge you’ve published incorrect details on names, what people were paid and a number of things that were both wrong and caused people to quit jobs that they loved and breakdown crying in meetings.
You’re sitting here crying poor because y
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
1. I did not doxx anyone. I referred only to information that was already publicly available. Doxxing is wrong, against Reddit ToS, and I do not support it.
2. You stated as fact that I “posted the real names and private information of others.” That is a serious allegation. Please identify the specific examples you relied on at the time you made that statement, because I am not aware of any instance in which I did this. In fact, the vast majority of information I refer to I cannot post explicitly because of this, even though Codesmith has the information in public for whatever reason, it would still be inappropriate to post or say anything that would identify anyone.
3. I participated in the Codesmith CSX Slack. I used a single account, under my real name, and I never mentioned my company to individuals. My participation was limited to helping with technical questions on a small number of occasions. Any other behavior attributed to me was not me, and I have stated this publicly. Accusations made without evidence misrepresent my actions and risk unfairly damaging my reputation within the Codesmith staff or community.
Like I said before, even though you have stated that you have a lot of inside information about Codesmith, you are clearly missing pieces and you have a responsibility to address those before making accusations.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
If you believe this you’ve either lost touch with reality or desperate to astroturf your behaviour. Either way there’s no convincing you to stop your crusade
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
I tend to take statements at face value. I don’t read into hints or implied messages. If someone tells me something directly, I respond directly.
If, in 2023, Will Sentance had reached out to say, “Your comments are upsetting staff, can we talk about your concerns?” I believe this situation could have unfolded very differently.
Instead, the first direct message I received from Will Sentance was in 2025. It demanded an apology based on allegations that I had “abused” his family, an accusation I categorically reject, and it was signed with promotional metrics: “Will Sentance (CEO, Codesmith — 1M+ taught, 4,000+ full-time graduates).”
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
1. Yes you did. Feel free to review the article above.
2. Salaries around future code - which were wrong and I called you out on it. I hope you’ve deleted those posts
3. This is incorrect. You were involved and even jumped in to community zoom calls to disrupt them. There were al
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
1. The piece being cited is not an article or investigative report. It is explicitly labeled as a blog post authored by a marketer. A third-party blog post is not primary evidence. I am not aware of any direct evidence in that post showing that I doxxed anyone. If such evidence exists, it should be identified specifically and evaluated on its merits rather than asserted by reference.
2. To my knowledge, my commentary consisted of clearly labeled estimates and opinions regarding Codesmith’s unit economics, expressed in the same analytical manner I have applied to multiple programs across the industry.
3. With respect to allegations of harassment or improper conduct, I again ask for evidence. My understanding is that I was removed from Codesmith sessions and Slack after stating, under my real name during a Zoom call, that a student described as “placed” was no longer employed at the company identified by the speaker. That statement was factual at the time it was made. I had one account on CSX Slack, under the name "Michael" and my work email address. No other conduct was cited to me as a basis for removal.
If people think I did stuff and didn't have evidence, then that is exactly the kind of rumors-stated-as-fact that can be defamatory. You have to have evidence when you state something as fact, otherwise qualify the statement.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Astroturfing. This is correct. And even if it was, the fact that you need to be told not to personally attack people in a public forum including speaking about staff members children is monstrous behaviour
u/michaelnovatireplied·
What is incorrect?
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Astroturfing. This is correct. And even if it was, the fact that you need to be told not to personally attack people in a public forum including speaking about staff members children is monstrous behaviour
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
With respect to the staff member referenced, I did not seek out any private or non-public information. While reviewing a Codesmith project for unrelated reasons, I observed the name of an adult child listed in the project materials, alongside a LinkedIn profile that was prominently linked.
In reviewing that publicly available LinkedIn and GitHub information, I noticed two discrepancies:
1. the individual’s listed professional experience appeared overstated relative to the timeline shown, and
2. the GitHub commit history associated with the account appeared to predate the creation date of the GitHub account itself.
Because the staff member in question serves as a career advisor, and because I was already in an ongoing email thread with Codesmith leadership on related matters, I raised these observations in that existing thread for review. I did not contact the individual directly, did not publicize the information, and did not pursue the matter further.
All information referenced was publicly available, and my communication was limited to internal channels with Codesmith leadership. On that basis, I do not understand how this conduct could reasonably be characterized as stalking.
u/Gullible_Mousse_4590 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Again, doxxing. Digging a mighty big hole here mike
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
If an organization chooses to market itself publicly, highlighting metrics like GitHub stars or describing student projects as 'contributions to the largest open-source projects in the world', that choice necessarily invites public evaluation of those claims.
Public scrutiny of public representations is not harassment, stalking, or doxxing when it relies on publicly available information and is conducted lawfully.
Claims either withstand scrutiny or they don’t. If they do, the evidence speaks for itself. If they don’t, criticism is a foreseeable and legitimate response.
Likewise, when security or operational issues become publicly observable or are responsibly disclosed, accountability and remediation, not reframing criticism as misconduct, are the appropriate response.
In the United States, open and lawful critique of public information is a core safeguard for consumers and markets, and this is more important now than ever. Efforts to discourage such scrutiny through mischaracterization undermine that principle.
u/ConnectHall4872 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
I may have to start recommending people to Codesmith’s program again. It looks like they may be the only program that can pipe new engineers into the job market. I guess those good student outcomes will keep rolling.
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
We'll see when their next CIRR report comes out. I periodically look at OSLabs-Beta and OpenSourceLabs GitHub projects and check if the students have jobs and the number of people with jobs about six months after graduation seems lower than it historically has been.
The next CIRR report though is people who graduated in 2024, not 2025, so the information will already be outdated. It would be really useful to get six month numbers for H1 2025.
The Codesmith Federal website says 90% of the 5000+ graduates get jobs within a year. Their own CIRR reports dispute that so I'm not sure if that's a preview of the 2024 outcomes or if it's just a mistake.
There also appears to be a new Codesmith FULL TIME program from August 7th, 2026 to November 9th, 2027, which is a whole 15 MONTHS!!! I'm very curious about that option.
Launch School though is crushing Codesmith on six month placement data though in my opinion. There 2024 grads six month placement rate is around 80% of graduates (they quote a lower percentage of starts but to compare to CIRR we need to compare graduates only) and Codesmith's 2023 six month placement was around 40% (and half the people didn't even respond and they guessed if it was a placement based on LinkedIn)
u/ConnectHall4872 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
“I periodically look at OSLabs-Beta and OpenSourceLabs GitHub projects and check if the students have jobs and the number of people with jobs about six months after graduation seems lower than it historically has been.”
We know you do, and it’s really weird. It’s been written ab
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
That blog post presents a one-sided framing and selectively quotes material to support a conclusion I do not agree with.
Claims such as: “Codesmith has proven this thesis true with 5,000+ alumni. 90% of graduates get hired within 12 months, most land leadership roles within big tech & AI labs, and many directly contribute to the world’s largest open source projects” are extraordinary marketing statements. Evaluating them using publicly available sources like LinkedIn and GitHub is both lawful and commonplace when assessing public claims about outcomes.
Reviewing publicly available professional profiles and repositories is not stalking or harassment. It is standard practice in hiring, investing, journalism, and market analysis, and it is often the only way to contextualize broad promotional claims.
I also reviewed summaries of my own comment history using automated tools and reached conclusions that differ materially from those asserted in the post. The blog does not disclose its methodology, inputs, or context, including that many comments occurred within unusually long threads involving multiple now-banned accounts actively engaging and responding.
Ironically, based on the author’s own podcast content, I suspect we might actually get along. I’ve spent time analyzing observable patterns of Reddit activity used to promote many unrelated products across multiple subreddits and its work that he may have found interesting, but he never reached out to ask questions or seek context.
u/ConnectHall4872 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Blah blah blah save it for the “lawsuit” or when you need to explain it to your investors. Your obsession with this is exhausting for me to even think about.
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
I’m consistent in who I am and how I show up, both publicly and privately. Over the years, I’ve received snarky remarks and unprofessional attacks from accounts that identify themselves as part of the Codesmith community, and that kind of dynamic likely contributes to the broader decline we’re seeing.
I’ve said this before, but it’s important context: I’m one account, using my real name. In contrast, many other accounts have appeared, engaged briefly and aggressively, and then disappeared—some of which no longer seem to be active. If more of these conversations were happening between identifiable people using real names, I think the tone and outcomes would be very different.
Transparency matters, especially right now. It’s normal for people to look at the same information and come to different conclusions. What’s not healthy is when discussions feel lopsided or impersonal, with one person engaging openly while others participate anonymously or ephemerally. That lack of clarity makes it harder to build trust or have productive disagreement.
I’d much rather see open, transparent conversations where people disagree strongly but engage respectfully and professionally. That kind of environment is better for everyone involved and it’s the only way real dialogue actually works.
u/michaelnovati wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Source: https://app.g2xchange.com/FedCiv/posts/smoothstack-obtains-118m-treasury-ocio-non-it-technical-workforce-development-and-training-bp
EDIT 01/29 NEW PRESS RELEASE EXPLAINING A BIT MORE: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/top-ranked-ai-training-company-brings-silicon
u/michaelnovatireplied·
Updated with new press release from today.
\- Codesmith is a subcontractor under LANTEC
\- The program appears to be training for IRS and Treasury personnel
\- The education is planned to be delivered by Codesmith Alumni who now work at top companies in industry.
u/jcl274 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
cool should we nominate michael? 😂
u/michaelnovatireplied·
Following up on this, the person who nominated me actually put "Michael's Mom" as the nominee and not me.... little do you know, my mom was a professional, employed, programmer 40 years ago.