4 ms·
The obvious question nobody is asking is: why is the government obligated to pay for a broken service that should clearly be in violation of the contract? And i
by daenz 6y ago
The obvious question nobody is asking is: why is the government obligated to pay for a broken service that should clearly be in violation of the contract? And if delivering a broken service doesn't violate the contract, why are these contracts being written so one-sided? There's more at play here than a lack of auditing. In the real world, if you don't deliver what you promise, you don't get paid.
- bobthepanda 6y agoLitigation for breach of contract is something that states can pursue. TFA: > Deloitte isn’t alone in its tumultuous history with benefits systems. IBM, another major player in the government IT industry, was awarded a $1.3 billion, 10-year contract to modernize Indiana’s welfare system in 2006. The state canceled the contract just three years later after complaints of erroneous benefits denials and other problems. Indiana and IBM sued each other over the dispute; the case has not yet been resolved. > Yet in 2010, IBM signed a $110 million deal with Pennsylvania to modernize its unemployment benefits system. The contract expired in 2013, ran millions over budget, and was never completed, according to a 2017 audit conducted by Pennsylvania auditor general Eugene DePasquale. In 2017, the state took legal action against IBM for breach of contract. That litigation is ongoing. The problem is that the wheels of justice move slowly, and in the meantime the system is still broken, and the previous system is also probably not up to par (after all, if it was working there would be no need to replace it).