6 ms·
I'm not terribly well-versed in defense contracts, but why don't these kind of massive things (that always go way over time) not have a clausul 'if you, as a de
by jorvi 10y ago
I'm not terribly well-versed in defense contracts, but why don't these kind of massive things (that always go way over time) not have a clausul 'if you, as a developer, go X amount over time or X amount over budget, you foot the rest of the cost until delivery'. Would seem like a very prudent thing to do as a government, and there's still so much money in it I can't imagine defense contractors not going for it.
- ryanmarsh 10y agoI would guess that it's not the contractors fault as much as the clients. Maybe this is my bias from doing contract work and having horrible clients.
- nradov 10y agoSure some defense contacts are firm fixed price with the vendor eating any cost overruns. But no rational defense contractor would ever agree to take on that level of risk for a program as complex as the F-35. Look what happened to the Airbus A400M. They agreed to a fixed price, and then when the program ran away over budget they blackmailed the EU defense ministers into renegotiating by threatening to cancel the program, close factories, or even go bankrupt. It's just politically impossible to hold the line on these deals.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 10y agoWould you sign a contract that looked like that?
- jorvi 10y agoI would find it very reasonable if entity X asks me to develop a fighter jet, X knows from experience that these programs always overrun, X asks me to make a realistic roadmap with some leeway built in, and then X says 'well, if you overshoot milestone 3 by more than one year you'll have to foot the rest of the cost until the next milestone'.
- querulous 10y agoso you agree, then tell X you ran out of money and are closing down the program. faced with choosing to lose a decade plus of progress or letting you out of that clause is no choice at all
- jorvi 10y agoWhy not? You can't shutter the program because you're contractually obliged for X to deliver. At that point you either eat the cost and deliver or your company is destroyed by fines and/or bankruptcy. And again: sure, those types of contracts would be harsher than the current situation, but they're still so juicy I can't imagine companies not going for them. Currently it seems to just be a huge money tap for whatever contractor gets them, without any amount of oversight or accountability/liability.
- manquer 10y agoA bankruptcy would be costly to the bureaucrats just as much as to the companies and set you back to square 1 with time & money spent and little to show for it...
- Gravityloss 10y agoThen you couldn't change requirements. Or companies wouldn't bid. Or companies would go bankrupt. But there have been some contracts (NASA commercial cargo to the space station) that have had fixed milestones for releasing money to contractor.
- Spooky23 10y agoI've worked for government agencies who've done stuff like that... albeit at a much smaller scale. Big .gov orgs have a lot of leverage, because they can make or break the sales force. The end result is that the vendor prices in the risk and overhead. Depending on the political situation and project, it may be worth paying that premium to displace the blame to the vendor. But for something like the F35, the cost is astronomical.
- gozur88 10y agoThey tried that in the '90s. A few contractors got into a bind, threw up their hands, and went bankrupt. From a budgetary standpoint that's fine, but when you're limping along with a platform you wanted to retire a decade ago or more (the marines have been stripping museum pieces for parts to keep Harriers in the air), you can't afford another twenty year development cycle. IMO the F-35 is fine from a capability standpoint. It's just far too expensive.