3 ms·

The procurement process for the government is broken because our political system is broken. You need deep pockets and political connections. This is actually

The procurement process for the government is broken because our political system is broken. You need deep pockets and political connections. This is actually Elon Musk’s greatest triumph; almost all of his post-PayPal businesses are based on exploiting weaknesses in government regulatory (Tesla, PayPal) or procurement processes (SpaceX, boring company). SpaceX was legitimate innovation in a broken government contracting process, but Tesla is starting to look like it was only a viable business with the subsidies — I would anticipate their business model to shift away from vehicles soon and turn towards large-scale grid infrastructure (aka government contracting).

JPKab 8y ago
Yes and no. Separate from the political issues at the top level of funding, the entire FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) is a steaming pile of reactionary bullshit, grown by accretion to minimize risk to bureaucrats at the expense of serving the tax payer efficiently. The whole "bribing and political connections" side is sexy and interesting and headline grabbing, but the bulk of the issue is just far more banal and depressing. The sad part about it is that the state of the FAR is such that our government, even if you are a person that wants it to play a bigger role, isn't really capable of executing on big things anymore. Combine that with the inept and apathetic staffing of (typically) mediocre at best clock punchers, and you end up with an organization that has a deep, deep spending efficiency issue. The two political parties are both clueless. One thinks a massive, bloated organization with a track record of spending inefficiencies needs more revenue. The other thinks that a nation of 350 million just doesn't need a funded federal government.
- Twirrim 8y ago
  > Separate from the political issues at the top level of funding, the entire FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) is a steaming pile of reactionary bullshit, grown by accretion to minimize risk to bureaucrats at the expense of serving the tax payer efficiently. I don't think people understand just how much of the procurement system has been built out of risk aversion. A thing needs doing, politicians / government workers procure a solution to that, and that solution ends up going wrong somehow. Lots of egg on the relevant politician's faces, and plenty of ammo for anyone running against them. "$foo wasted millions of taxpayers money on solutions that don't even work!" So they put in a new mechanism to try to ensure that mistake never happens again. Each individual mechanism on its own generally makes sense. But over decades and decades it becomes such a complete mess that if you take a step back and look at it, it's all kinds of absurdity (There's a fun parallel there to the infrastructure and systems we tend to make as developers and sysadmins). Worse, the kind of absurdity it has become actually ends up costing taxpayers more money than if a bunch of the regulations didn't exist, cheaper things were tried and failed, and replaced with one that does work.
  - exelius 8y ago
    By the same token, if you normalize failure in a structure that large, it’s hard to get anything done. It’s more enriching to get paid to fail 5 times than it is to do the thing once successfully. Failure is great when there is oversight and feedback mechanisms that help the organization learn from those failures. Less good when repeated failure is profitable.
matt4077 8y ago
The major driver of procurement bureaucracy is exactly this sort of blatant, somewhat cynical, distrust in government. Every requirement is designed to protect against arbitrary decision making, especially corruption but also just general "I like the vendor/product". Corruption is self-explanatory, so let's focus on the second: Instead of buying a Toyota because you liked the last one you drove, or because they offer a fancy color you like, you have to create a 500-item checklist of features you want in a car, and a scheme to evaluate and weigh all possible options. If you forget a single important criterion, say "available in colors other than pink", the police department will now be driving in pink cars.

JPKab 8y ago

Yes and no. Separate from the political issues at the top level of funding, the entire FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) is a steaming pile of reactionary bullshit, grown by accretion to minimize risk to bureaucrats at the expense of serving the tax payer efficiently. The whole "bribing and political connections" side is sexy and interesting and headline grabbing, but the bulk of the issue is just far more banal and depressing. The sad part about it is that the state of the FAR is such that our government, even if you are a person that wants it to play a bigger role, isn't really capable of executing on big things anymore. Combine that with the inept and apathetic staffing of (typically) mediocre at best clock punchers, and you end up with an organization that has a deep, deep spending efficiency issue. The two political parties are both clueless. One thinks a massive, bloated organization with a track record of spending inefficiencies needs more revenue. The other thinks that a nation of 350 million just doesn't need a funded federal government.

Twirrim 8y ago
> Separate from the political issues at the top level of funding, the entire FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) is a steaming pile of reactionary bullshit, grown by accretion to minimize risk to bureaucrats at the expense of serving the tax payer efficiently. I don't think people understand just how much of the procurement system has been built out of risk aversion. A thing needs doing, politicians / government workers procure a solution to that, and that solution ends up going wrong somehow. Lots of egg on the relevant politician's faces, and plenty of ammo for anyone running against them. "$foo wasted millions of taxpayers money on solutions that don't even work!" So they put in a new mechanism to try to ensure that mistake never happens again. Each individual mechanism on its own generally makes sense. But over decades and decades it becomes such a complete mess that if you take a step back and look at it, it's all kinds of absurdity (There's a fun parallel there to the infrastructure and systems we tend to make as developers and sysadmins). Worse, the kind of absurdity it has become actually ends up costing taxpayers more money than if a bunch of the regulations didn't exist, cheaper things were tried and failed, and replaced with one that does work.
- exelius 8y ago
  By the same token, if you normalize failure in a structure that large, it’s hard to get anything done. It’s more enriching to get paid to fail 5 times than it is to do the thing once successfully. Failure is great when there is oversight and feedback mechanisms that help the organization learn from those failures. Less good when repeated failure is profitable.

matt4077 8y ago

The major driver of procurement bureaucracy is exactly this sort of blatant, somewhat cynical, distrust in government. Every requirement is designed to protect against arbitrary decision making, especially corruption but also just general "I like the vendor/product". Corruption is self-explanatory, so let's focus on the second: Instead of buying a Toyota because you liked the last one you drove, or because they offer a fancy color you like, you have to create a 500-item checklist of features you want in a car, and a scheme to evaluate and weigh all possible options. If you forget a single important criterion, say "available in colors other than pink", the police department will now be driving in pink cars.