3 ms·

What was so insane about the deadline? The site was mostly fixed in a couple of months and that included time to find someone to fix the site and dig through al

What was so insane about the deadline? The site was mostly fixed in a couple of months and that included time to find someone to fix the site and dig through all the toxic code that was already written. With the level of incompetence that was shown in the site, it's extremely unlikely the original contractor just needed a couple more months to get the project finished. The deadline was more than realistic. There was plenty of time to create something useful, they were just too incompetent to do so.

ewoodrich 13y ago
Wait, it's "extremely unlikely" that the original contractor needed a "couple of months" and yet you state that the deadline was not insane because it was fixed in a "couple of months"? Most of the actual repair to the site was done by the contractors in question, the "IT surge" team that was brought in were mostly for quarterbacking what needed to be done. Would CGI Federal and the other contractors got it working with a bit more time? Maybe not, but I don't quite get how you can present such sweeping assumptions as fact.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  The site was riddled with so many issues and "simple pickups", like 404 pages, that I had no confidence in that management team to finish the project within a couple of months. However, a new management team quickly showed that the problems were fixable by a competent team. I believe the timeline was reasonable for a well managed team.
Spooky23 13y ago
I have a lot of experience in government, so I have a little perspective on this. Just like if you hire a guy to remodel your bathroom, you get exactly what you ask for. If you tell the contractor "I need a toilet", you will get the cheapest possible toilet available. Likewise, if you are contracting with a big vendor to deliver an IT project, they will do as much or as little as you require them to do. The government did not build in the gates/controls into the process that they should have, which is incompetence -- particularly with a service that is citizen-facing and critical to both the end-users and the government.

ewoodrich 13y ago

Wait, it's "extremely unlikely" that the original contractor needed a "couple of months" and yet you state that the deadline was not insane because it was fixed in a "couple of months"? Most of the actual repair to the site was done by the contractors in question, the "IT surge" team that was brought in were mostly for quarterbacking what needed to be done. Would CGI Federal and the other contractors got it working with a bit more time? Maybe not, but I don't quite get how you can present such sweeping assumptions as fact.

MichaelApproved 13y ago
The site was riddled with so many issues and "simple pickups", like 404 pages, that I had no confidence in that management team to finish the project within a couple of months. However, a new management team quickly showed that the problems were fixable by a competent team. I believe the timeline was reasonable for a well managed team.

Spooky23 13y ago

I have a lot of experience in government, so I have a little perspective on this. Just like if you hire a guy to remodel your bathroom, you get exactly what you ask for. If you tell the contractor "I need a toilet", you will get the cheapest possible toilet available. Likewise, if you are contracting with a big vendor to deliver an IT project, they will do as much or as little as you require them to do. The government did not build in the gates/controls into the process that they should have, which is incompetence -- particularly with a service that is citizen-facing and critical to both the end-users and the government.