ACA website and servers using outdated technology

[Naeeldar]

If I recall the article I read last week, they spent $600+ million to build that website and the infrastructure behind it, almost all of it paid to a Canadian company nobody had ever heard of before. CGI Global or something like that.

So yeah, absolutely, the whole problem is that they didn't spend enough money. In fact, everything the federal government does would magically become excellent with just some more cash.

CGI is a fairly large IT Services company. They aren't IBM and smaller than CSC but they do a lot of work with many Fortune 500 companies so no idea why you would not have heard of them.

Either way IT is notorious for either being underfunded or overfunded depending on the company or govt entity and what the project is. There are many projects that are massively overfunded and then others that are so underfunded it's not even funny. A lot of companies can barely get any money for support/services because apparently computers just always work and nobody ever needs help these days.

I sell IT Services myself and it's funny watching the differences in culture/politcs from a federal govt client to a fortune 10 company etc..

Oh and as an FYI a lot of times CIO's or VP's get bonuses by reducing IT cost year over year. That's a lot of the reason you the cuts in IT.

 

[Codewiz]

I can see why you're a developer instead of an executive or PM. I'm not sure how you think any member of a project team can accomplish anything absent leadership guidance, it's the business that drives systems design and not technology. Do you honestly think that the PM gets to veto the business decisions (or lack thereof) of the executive sponsors to make a change or not provide firm requirements? What would Bill Gates have done differently in this situation, logged a Risk and escalated it to the same executives who created it in the first place? Well, guess what - they did and the response was "Failure is not an option." Well, failure is always an option and that's exactly what happened here. Everyone and their brother said there was little chance the system would work on the proposed delivery date, including people testifying to Congress. No one did a fucking thing about it, mainly because the political hacks were worried about the optics and blowback from the other party if they decided to "NO GO" the deployment.

Actually you have no idea what I am. As I mentioned previously, I RAN a multi-million dollar program that had a much more complicated scope than the ACA website.

I dealt with our "customer" aka business sponsor every damn day. I had to answer for engineering. And bluntly, when they asked for things that were impossible, I explained why it was impossible. I explained why they couldn't "will" the laws of physics to change.

It would change the discuss to what we COULD do. I have 10+ years in the government and I have seen failure all over the place. And I have been part of HUGE successes. I have seen what works and doesn't work. If you are leading a program, not being able to say "No" is your death kneel.

So dismiss me all you want but I have actually been there and done that within the confines of the gov't. On a daily basis, I don't write a single line of code anymore. All my development is done on personal projects. If you wanted to give me a title at work, it would be either chief engineer or chief architect depending on the project.

 

[glenn1]

Actually you have no idea what I am. As I mentioned previously, I RAN a multi-million dollar program that had a much more complicated scope than the ACA website.

I dealt with our "customer" aka business sponsor every damn day. I had to answer for engineering. And bluntly, when they asked for things that were impossible, I explained why it was impossible. I explained why they couldn't "will" the laws of physics to change.

It would change the discuss to what we COULD do. I have 10+ years in the government and I have seen failure all over the place. And I have been part of HUGE successes. I have seen what works and doesn't work. If you are leading a program, not being able to say "No" is your death kneel.

So dismiss me all you want but I have actually been there and done that within the confines of the gov't. On a daily basis, I don't write a single line of code anymore. All my development is done on personal projects. If you wanted to give me a title at work, it would be either chief engineer or chief architect depending on the project.

I don't think you read what I and others have posted. Executive sponsors and other key stakeholders like Congress were repeatedly warned in completely unambiguous terms that the system would not be ready or even close, and the Administration pushed on anyway for political reasons. Even if you were the Superman motherfucker you think you are who can talk sense into any sponsor and explain to them "why it was impossible," they would ignored you too and your only choice would have been to resign or proceed as ordered.

 

[pauldun170]

That's a lot less specific than the information I posted.

What should we have received for $363 million in technology costs? At the very least, it should have worked for the 36 states in the federal exchange, even if it didn't work for the states that set up their own.

You posted the Andrew Couts opinion piece, the source of the misrepresentation.

After being called out for the misrepresentation, Couts has since updated his article to state he himself isn't exactly sure

The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov and its related systems is difficult to determine due to the expansive nature of the project and the murky details in federal budgets. But based on the figures and details available, here is my best estimate of what this flawed system has cost us:

​

​

 

[pauldun170]

I don't think you read what I and others have posted. Executive sponsors and other key stakeholders like Congress were repeatedly warned in completely unambiguous terms that the system would not be ready or even close, and the Administration pushed on anyway for political reasons. Even if you were the Superman motherfucker you think you are who can talk sense into any sponsor and explain to them "why it was impossible," they would ignored you too and your only choice would have been to resign or proceed as ordered.

Budget vs Quality vs Schedule

They chose to sacrifice quality to stay on schedule. If the schedule slipped it would have resulted in funding issues.

For the scope of this project, I think what has occurred isn't surprising.
They should have added "beta" to the end

 

[TerryMathews]

They should have added "beta" to the end

They would but Google trademarked it.

 

[Red Storm]

How exactly is this news? I would be more interested and surprised in hearing that they used modern technology.

 

[glenn1]

Budget vs Quality vs Schedule

They chose to sacrifice quality to stay on schedule. If the schedule slipped it would have resulted in funding issues.

For the scope of this project, I think what has occurred isn't surprising.
They should have added "beta" to the end

Actually this might be a case where extra money may not have helped in maintaining the schedule. One woman can have a baby in 9 months; you can't pay 9 women to collaborate and have a baby in 1 month no matter how much money you're willing to spend.

 

[sixone]

I don't think you read what I and others have posted. Executive sponsors and other key stakeholders like Congress were repeatedly warned in completely unambiguous terms that the system would not be ready or even close, and the Administration pushed on anyway for political reasons. Even if you were the Superman motherfucker you think you are who can talk sense into any sponsor and explain to them "why it was impossible," they would ignored you too and your only choice would have been to resign or proceed as ordered.

And yet those bastages were willing to shut down the government for 16 days, rather than admit that it wasn't ready for implementation.

And those bastages will get reelected, because they support abortion.

 

[sixone]

You posted the Andrew Couts opinion piece, the source of the misrepresentation.

After being called out for the misrepresentation, Couts has since updated his article to state he himself isn't exactly sure

You can argue with him, but his info came directly from the GAO.

If you want to say they're wrong, be my guest.

 

[Markbnj]

CGI is a fairly large IT Services company. They aren't IBM and smaller than CSC but they do a lot of work with many Fortune 500 companies so no idea why you would not have heard of them.

That's probably why I haven't heard of them. I avoid Fortune 500 companies like the soul-destroying pits of mediocrity most of them are.

Or it could be because CGI is Canadian, which is where we spend our government IT dollars because, I guess, we don't really have anyone here in the U.S. who can build a massively scalable web system that actually works *cough*googletwitterfacebooklinkedinamazonnetflix*cough*.

 

[Naeeldar]

That's probably why I haven't heard of them. I avoid Fortune 500 companies like the soul-destroying pits of mediocrity most of them are.

Or it could be because CGI is Canadian, which is where we spend our government IT dollars because, I guess, we don't really have anyone here in the U.S. who can build a massively scalable web system that actually works *cough*googletwitterfacebooklinkedinamazonnetflix*cough*.

Even what you are saying does not make sense. Any of the companies listed are not setup to deliver these types of services to another company. Even if they actually took a contract (and 70 million is probably not enough to disrupt their current revenue streams) they would end up having massive issues of their own because they would have to develop an ENTIRE NEW business model to deliver services externally. It's likely they would not have taken the business.

Second for all you know part of the requirments could have been that all the workers of the projects outside of (project management and billing) could have been based in North America. CGI has many offices here and does employee US employees. Where they are headquarted means nothing.

Look at IBM - us based but they have plenty of jobs overseas....

 

[sixone]

Even what you are saying does not make sense. Any of the companies listed are not setup to deliver these types of services to another company. Even if they actually took a contract (and 70 million is probably not enough to disrupt their current revenue streams) they would end up having massive issues of their own because they would have to develop an ENTIRE NEW business model to deliver services externally. It's likely they would not have taken the business.

So there will never ever be another private company that will develop an ENTIRE NEW business model to deliver services externally?

America is dead.

 

[OutHouse]

Government contracts should go to foreign companies as an absolute last resort, even if it costs more to do it in-country. It's a matter of sovereignty, and taking care of your people first.

i disagree. government contracts, especially the ACA contract should never go outside the country.

 

[OutHouse]

Any of the companies listed are not setup to deliver these types of services to another company.

look like CGI can not do this either.

 

[lxskllr]

i disagree. government contracts, especially the ACA contract should never go outside the country.

That's pretty much what I said. Americans can do any kind of coding. I was thinking of proprietary hardware that can't be made in the US. I don't know what that hardware would look like, but there may be something we can't do.

 

[Oceanas]

You're partly correct:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/

According to Reuters, it's more than that (and the GAO report says their data only goes through March of this year)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017

The work on Healthcare.gov grew out of a contract for open-ended technology services first issued in 2007 with a place-holder value of $1,000. There were 31 bidders. An extension, awarded in September 2011 specifically to build Healthcare.gov, drew four bidders, the documents show, including CGI Federal.


That 2011 extension is called a "delivery order" rather than a contract because it fell under the original 2007 agreement for CGI Federal to provide IT services to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the lead Obamacare agency. CGI Federal reported at the time of the extension that it had received $55.7 million for the first year's work to build Healthcare.gov.


In addition, said CGI spokeswoman Linda Odorisio, there were three one-year options, bringing the total potential value of the contract to $93.7 million. By August 2012, spending on the contract was already close to that limit.


This year, the bills skyrocketed. The government spent $27.7 million more in April, an additional $58 million in May and, in its latest outlay, $18.2 million in mid-September.


According to the government records, that brought the total spending for CGI's work on Healthcare.gov to $196 million. Adding in potential options, the contract is now valued at $292 million.

The changes to the Healthcare.gov contract came in response to more detailed requirements about how the site should operate, said a person at CGI familiar with the work.


When CMS awarded CGI Federal the first $55.7 million delivery order in 2011, "most of the regulations and guidance implementing the Affordable Care Act had not yet been finalized," said the person with knowledge of the award.


The Obama administration was issuing regulations and changing policy regarding how the reform should be implemented late into this summer. Many required significant changes to the IT running Healthcare.gov, which kept contractors scrambling.

 

[Markbnj]

Even what you are saying does not make sense. Any of the companies listed are not setup to deliver these types of services to another company. Even if they actually took a contract (and 70 million is probably not enough to disrupt their current revenue streams) they would end up having massive issues of their own because they would have to develop an ENTIRE NEW business model to deliver services externally. It's likely they would not have taken the business.

There are literally dozens of companies in the U.S. that could provide those services to the government, and many of them would likely have done a better job of it. U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be spent offshore unless there is absolutely no alternative.