3 ms·

For all of you that didn't know, this project was never put out for bid with an RFP. It was sole-sourced to CGI Federal without any competitive bids. "Federal

by ktavera 13y ago

For all of you that didn't know, this project was never put out for bid with an RFP. It was sole-sourced to CGI Federal without any competitive bids. "Federal health officials have not yet explained why CGI was given the contract or why it was awarded on a sole-source basis." http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-health-care-sites-problems-highlight-flawed-federal-it-policies/2013/10/09/d558da42-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-h... [Edit to add source]

ctdonath 13y ago
Upvote this. Heck, push it to all your favorite news outlets. There's no reason why one obscure company should get the contract without viable competitors.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-firm-hired-to-build-troubled-obamacare-exchanges/article/2536805 http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-firm-hired-to-build-t... Based on that article, the OP is wrong, the six hundred million is across all contracts, the ACA site which most people are aghast at is just under 60 million of that.
  - joering2 13y ago
    According to last sentence of [1], $90 went to CGI. [1] http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-may-face-months-glitches-experts-warn/ http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-w...
    - sp332 13y ago
      That's $90 million :)
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Non-sequitur. That others got other contracts is not relevant to the point that this contractor got this $60M contract without a bidding process when there was no reason to not solicit bids from others. (As others note, seems it was a lot more than $60M.)
    - somebehemoth 13y ago
      Given that the title of the article that started this discussion is, "We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404". I'd say it is fair to point out that actual cost was ten times less than is claimed in the article. I agree that no-bid contracts are bad, but they certainly are not unprecedented. I guess I am just not getting the outrage other people seem to have here. Maybe because I am not against ACA?
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        I guess I am just not getting the outrage other people seem to have here. "Buy my product or I'll charge you $3000" provokes ire, as does a subsequent "oh BTW, the website key to buying my product sucks, but that won't persuade me to delay enforcing the $3000 even though I've given all my buddies such wavers." Such gun-to-the-head tactics tends to elicit verbose nit-picking. Not hard to understand, even if you don't share the consternation.
        somebehemoth 13y ago
        It is very questionable whether a tax penalty is equivalent to "gun-to-the-head tactics". Speaking of a tax penalty: where did you get $3000 from? "The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher." - from https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/ https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-healt... Someone making $300,000 per year might pay $3k in 2014. I'm failing to have empathy for this kind of person who refuses to have health insurance. Poorer people pay way less of a penalty and are entitled to subsidies that make refusal of coverage much less fiscally logical. The outrage still makes little sense to me unless you ignore many relevant facts.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mgkimsal 13y ago
Are they not also a Canadian company? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group Why we'd be committing to using non-US companies to develop US systems... I guess it must happen sometimes, but on something this ... public?
- Lalabadie 13y ago
  Québécois here. CGI are experts at complying on governmental project requirements and then obscenely inflating costs. I am not surprised they succeed in the US too.
- alex_anglin 13y ago
  As a Canadian, I don't have any affection for CGI. But I would point out that this goes both ways: Just yesterday a peace activist in Canada was acquitted for not participating in the Census because she objected to the use of back-end systems from Lockheed Martin. (Never mind that the Census is no longer mandatory...) Our nations do have a free trade agreement in place, which on the whole I would say has benefited both sides. Patriotism aside, 'buy American' policies do not help with these partnerships.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - LammyL 13y ago
    Only the long-form census is voluntary. The short-form census is still mandatory, and not completing it could land you in court, like what happened here.
- abtinf 13y ago
  We should spend tax dollars in the most effective way possible. If we can save money buying a good from a foreign source, more precious tax dollars are available for other vital government services. You would need to do a lot of handwaving to try to argue that spending more money on "american-made" goods, just so that we can feel better psychologically, is a better use of tax money than, say, cancer research. I'm not even sure what "american-made" would mean in the context of software, which is produced on a global scale. I guess we would have to use Windows Server for the backend systems (and only those parts of it made in the US), instead of Linux, which has Finnish origins. Of course, I'm not saying CGI has proven very cost effective.
joering2 13y ago
At least good to know CGI Federal is an American breed company! </sarcasm>
raldi 13y ago
That's an interesting claim, but I can't bring myself to upvote it unless you add a citation link.
- ktavera 13y ago
  I know because I was watching for the RFP to come out so my company could bid on it. Also it's been reported at various media outlets. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-health-care-sites-problems-highlight-flawed-federal-it-policies/2013/10/09/d558da42-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-h...
iharris 13y ago
It's worth noting that CGI was also responsible for the ill-fated long gun registry in Canada, which was recently canceled due (in part) to massive cost overruns [1] and inability to cope with large numbers of users. [1] http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#Cost_overruns http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#Cost...
- hga 13y ago
  As an US RKBA activist since the early '70s (sic), I watched it from a distance in horrified fascination, and the Wikipedia section you cite matches my memories, that while the IT component was nasty and much bigger than expected/hoped/etc., it wasn't what crushed the registry. The job, including most especially human processing effort, was just massively larger than anticipated and was therefore not even vaguely covered by the statutory fees.
  - swamp40 13y ago
    Honestly, you would think that a company that has experienced "massively larger than anticipated" once before would be a good choice for this project.
    - hga 13y ago
      I guess it depends on the tradeoffs of reputational damage and making money. I gather the government told them "build a system that can handle 50,000 to 60,000 simultaneous users", which was "based partly on the all-time high of 30,000 simultaneous users for Medicare.gov" presumebly during the Plan D enrollment season (although per the article the theoretical max of healthcare.gov has not been disclosed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/health-care-website-repairs/2927597/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/health-...). Whatever the company thinks of the official goal, there's strict limits to how much extra they can spend to handle a much larger goal, vs. their getting paid on an emergency basis to bulk up the site....
  - iharris 13y ago
    Yeah, this was a good lesson how not to manage a large IT project. They didn't really understand the requirements or anticipate the user load, but the cost estimates were WAY off - from an anticipated $2m annual net cost, the actual net cost ballooned to $66.4m for 2010-2011. To be fair, the federal government was also at fault here but this absolutely blows my mind.
api 13y ago
Very, very typical government contracting. Government IT contracting is like free money. Great work if you can get it, and getting it probably involves swallowing multiple congressmen's semen.

by ktavera 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

Upvote this. Heck, push it to all your favorite news outlets. There's no reason why one obscure company should get the contract without viable competitors.

Shivetya 13y ago
http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-firm-hired-to-build-troubled-obamacare-exchanges/article/2536805 http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadian-firm-hired-to-build-t... Based on that article, the OP is wrong, the six hundred million is across all contracts, the ACA site which most people are aghast at is just under 60 million of that.
- joering2 13y ago
  According to last sentence of [1], $90 went to CGI. [1] http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-website-may-face-months-glitches-experts-warn/ http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/10/09/3-million-obamacare-w...
  - sp332 13y ago
    That's $90 million :)
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Non-sequitur. That others got other contracts is not relevant to the point that this contractor got this $60M contract without a bidding process when there was no reason to not solicit bids from others. (As others note, seems it was a lot more than $60M.)
  - somebehemoth 13y ago
    Given that the title of the article that started this discussion is, "We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404". I'd say it is fair to point out that actual cost was ten times less than is claimed in the article. I agree that no-bid contracts are bad, but they certainly are not unprecedented. I guess I am just not getting the outrage other people seem to have here. Maybe because I am not against ACA?
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      I guess I am just not getting the outrage other people seem to have here. "Buy my product or I'll charge you $3000" provokes ire, as does a subsequent "oh BTW, the website key to buying my product sucks, but that won't persuade me to delay enforcing the $3000 even though I've given all my buddies such wavers." Such gun-to-the-head tactics tends to elicit verbose nit-picking. Not hard to understand, even if you don't share the consternation.
      - somebehemoth 13y ago
        It is very questionable whether a tax penalty is equivalent to "gun-to-the-head tactics". Speaking of a tax penalty: where did you get $3000 from? "The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher." - from https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/ https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-healt... Someone making $300,000 per year might pay $3k in 2014. I'm failing to have empathy for this kind of person who refuses to have health insurance. Poorer people pay way less of a penalty and are entitled to subsidies that make refusal of coverage much less fiscally logical. The outrage still makes little sense to me unless you ignore many relevant facts.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mgkimsal 13y ago

Are they not also a Canadian company? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Group Why we'd be committing to using non-US companies to develop US systems... I guess it must happen sometimes, but on something this ... public?

Lalabadie 13y ago
Québécois here. CGI are experts at complying on governmental project requirements and then obscenely inflating costs. I am not surprised they succeed in the US too.
alex_anglin 13y ago
As a Canadian, I don't have any affection for CGI. But I would point out that this goes both ways: Just yesterday a peace activist in Canada was acquitted for not participating in the Census because she objected to the use of back-end systems from Lockheed Martin. (Never mind that the Census is no longer mandatory...) Our nations do have a free trade agreement in place, which on the whole I would say has benefited both sides. Patriotism aside, 'buy American' policies do not help with these partnerships.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- LammyL 13y ago
  Only the long-form census is voluntary. The short-form census is still mandatory, and not completing it could land you in court, like what happened here.
abtinf 13y ago
We should spend tax dollars in the most effective way possible. If we can save money buying a good from a foreign source, more precious tax dollars are available for other vital government services. You would need to do a lot of handwaving to try to argue that spending more money on "american-made" goods, just so that we can feel better psychologically, is a better use of tax money than, say, cancer research. I'm not even sure what "american-made" would mean in the context of software, which is produced on a global scale. I guess we would have to use Windows Server for the backend systems (and only those parts of it made in the US), instead of Linux, which has Finnish origins. Of course, I'm not saying CGI has proven very cost effective.

joering2 13y ago

At least good to know CGI Federal is an American breed company! </sarcasm>

raldi 13y ago

That's an interesting claim, but I can't bring myself to upvote it unless you add a citation link.

ktavera 13y ago
I know because I was watching for the RFP to come out so my company could bid on it. Also it's been reported at various media outlets. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-health-care-sites-problems-highlight-flawed-federal-it-policies/2013/10/09/d558da42-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-h...

iharris 13y ago

It's worth noting that CGI was also responsible for the ill-fated long gun registry in Canada, which was recently canceled due (in part) to massive cost overruns [1] and inability to cope with large numbers of users. [1] http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#Cost_overruns http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#Cost...

hga 13y ago
As an US RKBA activist since the early '70s (sic), I watched it from a distance in horrified fascination, and the Wikipedia section you cite matches my memories, that while the IT component was nasty and much bigger than expected/hoped/etc., it wasn't what crushed the registry. The job, including most especially human processing effort, was just massively larger than anticipated and was therefore not even vaguely covered by the statutory fees.
- swamp40 13y ago
  Honestly, you would think that a company that has experienced "massively larger than anticipated" once before would be a good choice for this project.
  - hga 13y ago
    I guess it depends on the tradeoffs of reputational damage and making money. I gather the government told them "build a system that can handle 50,000 to 60,000 simultaneous users", which was "based partly on the all-time high of 30,000 simultaneous users for Medicare.gov" presumebly during the Plan D enrollment season (although per the article the theoretical max of healthcare.gov has not been disclosed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/health-care-website-repairs/2927597/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/05/health-...). Whatever the company thinks of the official goal, there's strict limits to how much extra they can spend to handle a much larger goal, vs. their getting paid on an emergency basis to bulk up the site....
- iharris 13y ago
  Yeah, this was a good lesson how not to manage a large IT project. They didn't really understand the requirements or anticipate the user load, but the cost estimates were WAY off - from an anticipated $2m annual net cost, the actual net cost ballooned to $66.4m for 2010-2011. To be fair, the federal government was also at fault here but this absolutely blows my mind.

api 13y ago

Very, very typical government contracting. Government IT contracting is like free money. Great work if you can get it, and getting it probably involves swallowing multiple congressmen's semen.