3 ms·
I can almost assure you it was an explicit requirement in an RFP that was copied from some master template. So not a good justification - but a justification in
by icyfox 3y ago
I can almost assure you it was an explicit requirement in an RFP that was copied from some master template. So not a good justification - but a justification in the eyes of the bureaucracy.
The book Recoding America has a lot of anecdotes to this effect; most of these situations reduce to a Congressional mandate that got misinterpreted along the way. My favorite was for an update to Social Security. The department in charge of the implementation swore that Congress was forcing them to build a facebook for doctors (literally where doctors could friend other doctors and message them). Congress had no such intention; it was actually 3rd party lobbying that wanted the requirement so they could build their own solution outside of government. Really crazy stuff.
- reverius42 3y ago> Congress had no such intention; it was actually 3rd party lobbying Right, but 3rd party lobbying can't force anyone to do anything, whereas Congress can (and did) give this mandate the force of law. The fact that lobbyists got Congress to do something that they had "no such intention" to do is its own problem, but let's not lose sight of who is responsible for laws.
- icyfox 3y agoThat's the interesting part of this story; Congress didn't think this requirement existed, neither did the lobbyists. But the language that congress adopted (with the consultation of this lobbying group) made the agencies _think_ it was what congress wanted. So the agency was left holding the bag for something no one actually wanted in the first place. Like a big game of telephone. I agree with your broader point however. Congress needs to do a better job of owning outcomes.