Here's the inside poop on CGI Federal...the IT company behind the ACA web site

[Joanie Baloney]

Sounds like it's a combination of problems - non-communicative government systems, delays in getting the requirements from HHS, the entire bidding process....but I think the beast is just too big!!



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/16/meet-cgi-federal-the-company-behind-the-botched-launch-of-healthcare-gov/

[NoOneMan]

1. Its probably comes right down to the bidding process

Some guy in the article said it might of been better if it was a $4 million dollar project. I concur. I could of thrown together a team of pros that ate up that project and spit out a solution in no time, while laughing our way to the bank for $4 million. The problem was that the contract went to companies loaded with "IT" people, managers, officers, idiots, lawyers, etc, instead of experienced comp-sci junkies who can't get their foot in the door. Then it becomes a logistic nightmare to coordinate crews of that size.

[MineralMan]

2. Yup. And besides that, those consulting companies go on a

hiring spree for temps when they get a big contract like this one. Among them are incompetent folks who end up dropping tools into the moving parts, bringing everything to a halt.

Most of the money goes to the top, and the actual work is done by the cheapest people they can find.

Very unfortunate.

[NoOneMan]

3. And the funny thing is...

If you are an experienced, successful programmer, the last thing you want to do with your career is sign up on some temporary behemoth project ran by comp-sci illiterate money men where you will be harassed by conference calls and subjected to ridiculous timelines without being provided with timely documentation. That basically leaves them scraping blindly at the bottom of the barrel.

I've done a stint with a deep pocketed PEG once. Never again.

[MineralMan]

4. The problem comes down to it being a government project.

The government is a huge, clumsy behemoth, so it's only natural that they choose other huge, clumsy behemoths to win contracts like this one. It's all bureaucrats know.

You're right. An agile team of truly experienced website and database pros could have put this whole thing together more quickly and much better. Give them the specs of what the website is supposed to do and how heavy the traffic is expected to be, and let them build it.

But that's not how it works for government contracts. They insist on complexity in planning and change things constantly. There's no continuity and the contractors they hire are extremely top-heavy, rather than being run by people who know what to do. That leads to endless planning meetings, constant change orders, poor communications, and hiring of the cheapest possible programmers.

As Rocky the Squirrel says whenever Bullwinkle proposes pulling a rabbit out of his hat: "That trick never works."

My wife used Minnesota's ACA exchange website. Her main complaint was that she had to re-enter her data multiple times as she moved through the modules of the site. That was AFTER she had entered it all to get an account she could sign in with. Where did that data go? Why should anyone have to re-enter the same data again and again? Clumsy design, poor communication between modules, and ineffective use of data. Moronic. And my wife makes her living writing about commercial websites and reviewing them. This one gets a bad review. She was successful in using it, but I can't imagine how someone with minimal website experience could have gotten through it without throwing a brick through the monitor.

[snooper2]

6. I'm partially involved in a huge government project...PITA doesn't begin to describe it

You think you are talking to somebody able to make a decision, then two months later a different group comes in-


Oh No, you need to talk to our security folks! Stop, review everything, look at the architecture again, rewind, repeat--

[Hutzpa]

9. Too many unnecesary bigs

acting like they know what they're talking about using unintelligible IT terms to scare the shitless.

[Hutzpa]

8. I couldn't agree with this more

I could have done this for less with much better result than what they produced.

$88 million down the effing drain with no oversight and Obama administration taking the blame.

Just like Gibbs said, heads need to roll, maybe the contractor need to return their money back
because this is bs.

[snooper2]

5. CGI is a pretty good company, just met with them at a vendor conference in San Diego..

Now just have to beat on them with pricing

[Silent3]

7. I have to wonder if the budget for IT was simply made too small...

...to get the ACA bill past filibustering Republicans.