3 ms·

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, here's the gist: Another government contractor (Lockhead Martin) fucks up now it's the FAA's fault for having s

by steego 12y ago

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, here's the gist: Another government contractor (Lockhead Martin) fucks up now it's the FAA's fault for having standards. My one experience working on a government contract was positive. Basically the government set a deadline, some basic performance metrics and added clauses that fined us if we didn't meet those performance metrics. If were early and/or exceeded those metrics, we got a bonus. The end result was simple: Our company did everything it could to make sure we met the deadline and we delivered a quality solution. How much do you want to bet that a big company like Lockhead Martin is really good at using its political leverage to make sure the FAA doesn't impose fines in the contracts when projects don't perform up to key metrics?

Jtsummers 12y ago
> How much do you want to bet that a big company like Lockhead Martin is really good at using its political leverage to make sure the FAA doesn't impose fines in the contracts when projects don't perform up to key metrics? Ding ding ding! I watched Northrop do exactly that on a system. They used their clout to persuade the program office on a system to rate them more favorably than they deserved (truly, they were consistently delivering late but ended up with positive marks across the board). Fortunately, this resulted in a big shakeup once it was discovered and reported. Unfortunately, NG continued to hold the contract (no one else could, practically speaking) and all that really changed was the personnel in the program office. I was gone by the time thing got "fixed" so I have no idea if it's actually improved on that particular project.
aburan28 12y ago
The project specifications demanded by the FAA are absolutely ludicrous. This is not the F35 program.
- steego 12y ago
  I honestly can't comment on the specifications, but seeing how you're familiar with them, can you elaborate? What makes them ludicrous? How would you structure the specifications to be more reasonable? How would you layout the incentive structure to ensure the contractor delivers a safe, secure and reliable system?

by steego 12y ago

Jtsummers 12y ago

> How much do you want to bet that a big company like Lockhead Martin is really good at using its political leverage to make sure the FAA doesn't impose fines in the contracts when projects don't perform up to key metrics? Ding ding ding! I watched Northrop do exactly that on a system. They used their clout to persuade the program office on a system to rate them more favorably than they deserved (truly, they were consistently delivering late but ended up with positive marks across the board). Fortunately, this resulted in a big shakeup once it was discovered and reported. Unfortunately, NG continued to hold the contract (no one else could, practically speaking) and all that really changed was the personnel in the program office. I was gone by the time thing got "fixed" so I have no idea if it's actually improved on that particular project.

aburan28 12y ago

The project specifications demanded by the FAA are absolutely ludicrous. This is not the F35 program.

steego 12y ago
I honestly can't comment on the specifications, but seeing how you're familiar with them, can you elaborate? What makes them ludicrous? How would you structure the specifications to be more reasonable? How would you layout the incentive structure to ensure the contractor delivers a safe, secure and reliable system?