3 ms·

What do you see is being done to combat the issue of big contractors (Booz Allen, CGI, etc) who don't want the gov't building software with small teams because

by makaimc 11y ago

What do you see is being done to combat the issue of big contractors (Booz Allen, CGI, etc) who don't want the gov't building software with small teams because it would hurt their ability to obtain huge billion dollar contracts?

brandonb 11y ago
The existing contractors definitely don't like it, and on healthcare.gov, we learned to expect zero cooperation (indeed, plenty of interference) from the management of those companies. [1] But ultimately, the people making the contracting decisions are agencies like CMS, HHS, the VA, and DHS. And with USDS, the agencies now have solid third party to provide technical advice--for example, that a consumer login system shouldn't cost $80 million to develop. That's why you see results like the one quoted in the article, where a $200m initial healthcare.gov system was replaced with a $4m one. And if you read between the lines, you'll notice that the major federal contractor for healthcare.gov decided not to bid this year: http://www.wsj.com/articles/healthcare-gov-contractor-optum-declares-its-job-done-1431622152 http://www.wsj.com/articles/healthcare-gov-contractor-optum-... Sometimes the good guys win. [1] On the other hand, the engineers at those companies generally want to do the right thing, if they are empowered to.
- makaimc 11y ago
  Thanks, it's encouraging to hear that the contracting officers are now getting better advice from technical folks who understand the small teams approach.
devonkim 11y ago
To be fair, a lot of the contractors don't like to cooperate with even each other (a huge part of the cost overruns are related to this reality, same as with private sector probably, too). Historically, the government has basically done almost nothing to referee bad behavior between companies on a contract, but because so many contracts are basically winner-take-all style, much of the fighting would happen before the contract starts. I like to think that if everyone of the contractors had their customers' interests as priority #1 that the current situation wouldn't be happening. This is why I have few hopes of much changing down the road without a massive reform. The most skilled, talented contractors tend to have trouble surviving the system despite the funding vehicles available. Even the SETA system created to "police" contractors a bit in the government's best interest is fairly easily gamed by the reality that people form relationships and that people can easily switch companies.

by makaimc 11y ago

brandonb 11y ago

The existing contractors definitely don't like it, and on healthcare.gov, we learned to expect zero cooperation (indeed, plenty of interference) from the management of those companies. [1] But ultimately, the people making the contracting decisions are agencies like CMS, HHS, the VA, and DHS. And with USDS, the agencies now have solid third party to provide technical advice--for example, that a consumer login system shouldn't cost $80 million to develop. That's why you see results like the one quoted in the article, where a $200m initial healthcare.gov system was replaced with a $4m one. And if you read between the lines, you'll notice that the major federal contractor for healthcare.gov decided not to bid this year: http://www.wsj.com/articles/healthcare-gov-contractor-optum-declares-its-job-done-1431622152 http://www.wsj.com/articles/healthcare-gov-contractor-optum-... Sometimes the good guys win. [1] On the other hand, the engineers at those companies generally want to do the right thing, if they are empowered to.

makaimc 11y ago
Thanks, it's encouraging to hear that the contracting officers are now getting better advice from technical folks who understand the small teams approach.

devonkim 11y ago

To be fair, a lot of the contractors don't like to cooperate with even each other (a huge part of the cost overruns are related to this reality, same as with private sector probably, too). Historically, the government has basically done almost nothing to referee bad behavior between companies on a contract, but because so many contracts are basically winner-take-all style, much of the fighting would happen before the contract starts. I like to think that if everyone of the contractors had their customers' interests as priority #1 that the current situation wouldn't be happening. This is why I have few hopes of much changing down the road without a massive reform. The most skilled, talented contractors tend to have trouble surviving the system despite the funding vehicles available. Even the SETA system created to "police" contractors a bit in the government's best interest is fairly easily gamed by the reality that people form relationships and that people can easily switch companies.