3 ms·

> you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. Help me out with that. I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte w

> you state a lot in a very aggressive tone of voice. Help me out with that. I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I mean Deloitte isn’t singled out in the article, the article really goes after IBM also. That said I wouldn’t even say the article has an aggressive tone, but it speaks for itself. Deloitte has delivered systems that don’t work on multiple government contracts, all of which have run significantly over budget, and Deloitte has requested new contracts to fix the systems (Instead if footing the bill) and when sued for breach of contract by the states Deloitte has engaged in protracted litigation rather than “footing the bill”. I think it’s fair, not aggressive to ask for some validation of Deloitte footing bills where their systems failed in light of Deloitte's practices detailed in the article. The article is all about state unemployment systems, I mean really they aren’t complex and they either work or don’t. Even Deloitte‘s argument amounts to be well if the $xxM unemployment system Doesn’t work it’s because the state requested a non functioning system, of course it’s all backed by Deloitte Representative quotes denying the systems don’t work and championing how great the systems they delivered are, and otherwise blaming the client if these great systems failed.

aplummer 6y ago
> I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I didn’t say that, they would foot the bill for the changes required to make it work as expected in the contract. It’s unlikely you would deliver 0 value with 100m, so it would be a fraction. This would lower the overall margin on the project, be considered business development or some other activity. There’s also discounting future work as a lever to resolve it. They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  > They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work. Have you read the article? The article details multiple failures to deliver on government contracts nearing $100M. The article details a practice of refusing to amicably resolve matters in good faith, instead Deloitte prefers protracted litigation, which when involving government is just additional costs to the tax payers above and beyond the initial costs tax payers footed for the original contract to Deloitte resulting in a non working system. There are a few read between the lines also, Deloitte knows their litigation budget is significantly larger than the state governments and they know their attorneys can overwhelm the states ability to litigating just through costs alone. The other point about biting the hand that feeds them...sure if you were small time and failed to deliver and forced the states to litigate a breach of contract case, you may be cutting your nose off despite your face. But entities like Deloitte can do this, and they will continue to get new government contracts while the prior contracts are still being litigated. You got your Deloitte’s, McKenzie’s, Goldman Sach’s, haliburton’s, Boeing’s, etc...they could set the world on fire and then lobby and get the contracts to put out the fires they started. Those firms are the reason for the term “revolving door politics.”

aplummer 6y ago

> I’m really just asking for some support of the original statement that Deloitte will foot a $100M bill for a client when they fail to deliver a working system. I didn’t say that, they would foot the bill for the changes required to make it work as expected in the contract. It’s unlikely you would deliver 0 value with 100m, so it would be a fraction. This would lower the overall margin on the project, be considered business development or some other activity. There’s also discounting future work as a lever to resolve it. They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
> They aren’t stupid, biting the government hand that feeds them isn’t a good way to keep winning new work. Have you read the article? The article details multiple failures to deliver on government contracts nearing $100M. The article details a practice of refusing to amicably resolve matters in good faith, instead Deloitte prefers protracted litigation, which when involving government is just additional costs to the tax payers above and beyond the initial costs tax payers footed for the original contract to Deloitte resulting in a non working system. There are a few read between the lines also, Deloitte knows their litigation budget is significantly larger than the state governments and they know their attorneys can overwhelm the states ability to litigating just through costs alone. The other point about biting the hand that feeds them...sure if you were small time and failed to deliver and forced the states to litigate a breach of contract case, you may be cutting your nose off despite your face. But entities like Deloitte can do this, and they will continue to get new government contracts while the prior contracts are still being litigated. You got your Deloitte’s, McKenzie’s, Goldman Sach’s, haliburton’s, Boeing’s, etc...they could set the world on fire and then lobby and get the contracts to put out the fires they started. Those firms are the reason for the term “revolving door politics.”