I find it interesting that this audit only covers administrative contract oversight. The failings uncovered seem to have been of the variety "Contractor A didn'

I find it interesting that this audit only covers administrative contract oversight. The failings uncovered seem to have been of the variety "Contractor A didn't submit monthly reports for February and March". I don't claim that contracts of that size should have poor administrative oversight, not at all. Even movies with big budgets mention the assistant producers and accountants in the credits. But what about technical oversight? Were there design-review meetings where somebody said "our system emits data in HL7" and somebody else said, "we haven't defined the XML schema for our data acceptance module yet." In a meeting like that somebody in tech oversight should have said "wait! is it HL7 or XML? Who is going to sort this out?" (I have no idea whether this actual issue came. Probably the stuff that actually came up, or should have, is far more intricate.) The purpose of administrative monthly reports' "issues" section is to track stuff like like this. That's why contracts require them. If the government can make the Apollo program work, the government can figure out technical oversight. It just takes the will to do so.