FBI computer system years late and way over budget

[her209]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

 

[bfdd]

It should completely be on them I agree.

 

[MotF Bane]

If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

Agreed.

 

[lothar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

This is the same thing Robert Gates is trying to fix at the DoD.

 

[sactoking]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

Ummmm.... I don't know which article you read, but the one you linked mentioned no cause for the cost overruns. Automatically placing the blame on the contractor is bogus.

The article did mention that "consultants" deemed an earlier program outdated and it was scrapped, to the tune of $170,000,000. It did not mention if the consultants had unilateral authority to scrap the program or if the FBI had final say. If the FBI had final say, shame on them for hiring consultants in the first place and again for authorizing the program to be scrapped.

For the Sentinel system, a more likely explanation than an underbid by the contractor is FBI-authorized scope changes and creep. Hell, the article even says the report "didn't give the FBI enough credit for making changes to the program." So, the FBI is in there making changes? Of course it's going to run overdue and overbudget.

There's a reason most wide-scale system upgrades and ERP installs fail, run too long, or cost too much: the people buying the product have no idea what it is they actually want.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

Notice the news story doesn't even name the contractor(s). Can't hurt their reputation.

 

[her209]

Ummmm.... I don't know which article you read, but the one you linked mentioned no cause for the cost overruns. Automatically placing the blame on the contractor is bogus.

The article did mention that "consultants" deemed an earlier program outdated and it was scrapped, to the tune of $170,000,000. It did not mention if the consultants had unilateral authority to scrap the program or if the FBI had final say. If the FBI had final say, shame on them for hiring consultants in the first place and again for authorizing the program to be scrapped.

For the Sentinel system, a more likely explanation than an underbid by the contractor is FBI-authorized scope changes and creep. Hell, the article even says the report "didn't give the FBI enough credit for making changes to the program." So, the FBI is in there making changes? Of course it's going to run overdue and overbudget.

There's a reason most wide-scale system upgrades and ERP installs fail, run too long, or cost too much: the people buying the product have no idea what it is they actually want.

From the OIG's report (I'm still reading):

Requirements and Capabilities

During the replanning efforts, the FBI reallocated Sentinel’s planned requirements among its four phases. In most cases, the Sentinel PMO and Lockheed Martin have moved the completion, or full satisfaction, of requirements to earlier phases than originally planned. FBI officials stated that this type of reallocation reduces the FBI’s risk because moving requirements to earlier phases provides an early warning of potential problems with the design or performance of Sentinel.

In addition to the reallocation of Sentinel’s requirements, other requirements have been added to the project. In September 2008, the Department of Justice issued new Attorney General Guidelines on Domestic FBI Operations (AG Guidelines) that included policy on assessing complaints received by the FBI concerning reported criminal activity. For example, requirements necessary to implement the new complaint assessment process mandated by the AG Guidelines were not included in the original Sentinel System Requirements Specifications, so the new AG Guidelines effectively added requirements to Sentinel and expanded the scope of the project. Lockheed Martin estimated that the new requirements would cost about $3.1 million to implement. However, the FBI rejected Lockheed Martin’s proposal because, according to the Sentinel PMO, Lockheed Martin’s proposal included items that were not needed. As of August 2009, the FBI has not determined the cost of updating the requirements to ensure that Sentinel complies with the revised AG Guidelines. As a result, the Sentinel PMO plans to ask Lockheed Martin for an estimate on a more precisely defined scope of work.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Notice the news story doesn't even name the contractor(s). Can't hurt their reputation.

I suspect this is for security reasons.

 

[charrison]

This is the same thing Robert Gates is trying to fix at the DoD.

Gates has already given up on this. The govt really bungled the conversion of contractors to civil service.

 

[drebo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

It's not always the developer's fault, though. Feature-creep is a HUGE problem in systems' development of any size.

 

[her209]

I suspect this is for security reasons.

Umm, no. Just a badly written article.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure they'll do better with something much more complicated, like oh, healthcare.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm sure they'll do better with something much more complicated, like oh, healthcare.

No no no, government cures all problems with the healthcare system. It'll be more efficient! :awe:

 

[charrison]

It's not always the developer's fault, though. Feature-creep is a HUGE problem in systems' development of any size.

Yes it is. I have seen some of the ugly stuff that happens. I saw contractors let go because they controlled feature creep. Another group was hired to do the job as they would say yes to every requested feature. The program was eventually scrapped and nothing was produced.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004187.html

Why do we let contractors get away with this kind of "accounting"? If contractors underbid the RFPs to win the contract and run over their own projected costs, it should be on them to come with the difference, not the government.

If there is a contract and the contract isn't met, then not only will the contractor have to finish the job, he will have to pay for the costs associated with not having the locale finished in time.

If they don't agree, not one cent should be paid out to that contractor, not ONE!

If they think that because it's taxpayer money they can just squander it, fuck them.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes it is. I have seen some of the ugly stuff that happens. I saw contractors let go because they controlled feature creep. Another group was hired to do the job as they would say yes to every requested feature. The program was eventually scrapped and nothing was produced.

For everything not produced, nothing should be paid.

Would you pay a contractor who built you a non existing garage?

Fuck them, first of all, do what we did, don't just throw it out there, pick the companies that are worthwhile and let them fight over price, then you go with the best one, that way you know you'll have a company that can do it well and at the least cost that a proper system can be built at... How the fuck is this rocket science for the average morons doing these things?

 

[charrison]

If there is a contract and the contract isn't met, then not only will the contractor have to finish the job, he will have to pay for the costs associated with not having the locale finished in time.

If they don't agree, not one cent should be paid out to that contractor, not ONE!

If they think that because it's taxpayer money they can just squander it, fuck them.

I wish it was only that simple. Poorly defined requirements and scope creep can lead to significant cost overruns. This is not just a problem with the contractors not delivering.

 

[senseamp]

I'm sure they'll do better with something much more complicated, like oh, healthcare.

It's a private sector contractor that screwed up.

 

[charrison]

For everything not produced, nothing should be paid.

Would you pay a contractor who built you a non existing garage?

Fuck them, first of all, do what we did, don't just throw it out there, pick the companies that are worthwhile and let them fight over price, then you go with the best one, that way you know you'll have a company that can do it well and at the least cost that a proper system can be built at... How the fuck is this rocket science for the average morons doing these things?

This was a problem with the management of the contract. Would you as a contractor demand to be paid for a garage you were building when the specs for the garage keep changing? Contractors alone are not to blame.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I wish it was only that simple. Poorly defined requirements and scope creep can lead to significant cost overruns. This is not just a problem with the contractors not delivering.

If they don't get the requirements and scope, they should ask about it.

There really is no such thing as score creep, you either have a project and work with that until it does work and after that you improve whatever needs to be done, but if a project isn't even close to being functional in any way at all after the set time....

It happens fairly often that other things than basic requirements are requested, they should be treated as such, the requirments for the system should work and it should be up and running in time, other requests can be added but will cost more.

This should be obvious.

 

[drebo]

For everything not produced, nothing should be paid.

Would you pay a contractor who built you a non existing garage?

Fuck them, first of all, do what we did, don't just throw it out there, pick the companies that are worthwhile and let them fight over price, then you go with the best one, that way you know you'll have a company that can do it well and at the least cost that a proper system can be built at... How the fuck is this rocket science for the average morons doing these things?

That's not the point. Let's say you hire a contractor to build you a garage for $3,000 and the initial contract was for a 2-car, single door, corregated steel garage with an unfinished interior. Then let's say that you decide you want two separate doors, a loft, and the interior of the garage to be finished. Then you decide that you want a wooden frame instead of a steel building. Then you decide to add on a third, tandem car spot. The contractor now tells you the project is going to take twice as long and cost twice as much.

That's not his fault, and you have no right to complain about it.

This is the number one biggest source of problems for anyone who has ever done contract development work of any kind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This was a problem with the management of the contract. Would you as a contractor demand to be paid for a garage you were building when the specs for the garage keep changing? Contractors alone are not to blame.

I know this is just an analogy but it's a pretty good one.

Now, first of all, the garage didn't get built at all, no specs were met anywhere, hell they didn't even start building it.

Five years later, no work done, well fuck you we worked with your specs and did nothing so now pay up.

THAT is essentally the end result.

Just like building a garage, they had to build the foundation for this application, that leaves a proper code base. Pay for that much and hand it over to a company that meets the requests made, that code base should meet the original requests and be paid for as such.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That's not the point. Let's say you hire a contractor to build you a garage for $3,000 and the initial contract was for a 2-car, single door, corregated steel garage with an unfinished interior. Then let's say that you decide you want two separate doors, a loft, and the interior of the garage to be finished. Then you decide that you want a wooden frame instead of a steel building. Then you decide to add on a third, tandem car spot. The contractor now tells you the project is going to take twice as long and cost twice as much.

That's not his fault, and you have no right to complain about it.

This is the number one biggest source of problems for anyone who has ever done contract development work of any kind.

I hire a contractor, i tell him that in the next ten days i want him to build a garage with two doors, in 8 days i tell him i want to change that to a 3 door garage, after 10 days he has not even laid the foundation for the garage, says he can't do it within the next six years and wants to get paid.

This is actually how it works with many government contracts, a SHITLOAD of them were handed out during the Labour gov under Blair but the rules have changed in the UK now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. I work for a govt entity, so let me explain how this works.

First, hire consultants at exorbitant fees to report to people who don't know what they're looking, base the specifications on the consultants' recommendations.

Realizing that the specs will never fly, contractors bid low, knowing they'll have the purchaser by the short hairs for necessary changes.

As the clusterfuck unfolds, contractors sink in their fangs, make the desired changes, then exploit the law of unintended consequences so that more changes are necessary, invoke technological shiny-ness to dazzle the buyer into more changes...

Meanwhile, time marches on, contractors get fat, and all the changes make for an unwieldy mess that can't possibly work.

Bring back your consultants who tell you to scrap it, and since they did such a good job last time, hire them again to help you write the new specs, report to more of the same bonehead managerial sycophants who have no idea what they're looking at...

Software systems like this are the ultimate flimflam, maybe better than Wall St's game, if not as lucrative overall...

What nobody in the industry really wants to talk about is that very well designed systems that do their job are never obsolete... because there's no money in that, and that crap software will always be crap, requiring ongoing expensive fixes and patches. They make it that way on purpose.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Heh. I work for a govt entity, so let me explain how this works.

First, hire consultants at exorbitant fees to report to people who don't know what they're looking, base the specifications on the consultants' recommendations.

Realizing that the specs will never fly, contractors bid low, knowing they'll have the purchaser by the short hairs for necessary changes.

As the clusterfuck unfolds, contractors sink in their fangs, make the desired changes, then exploit the law of unintended consequences so that more changes are necessary, invoke technological shiny-ness to dazzle the buyer into more changes...

Meanwhile, time marches on, contractors get fat, and all the changes make for an unwieldy mess that can't possibly work.

Bring back your consultants who tell you to scrap it, and since they did such a good job last time, hire them again to help you write the new specs, report to more of the same bonehead managerial sycophants who have no idea what they're looking at...

Software systems like this are the ultimate flimflam, maybe better than Wall St's game, if not as lucrative overall...

What nobody in the industry really wants to talk about is that very well designed systems that do their job are never obsolete... because there's no money in that, and that crap software will always be crap, requiring ongoing expensive fixes and patches. They make it that way on purpose.

It took the UK AF six months to get the system from a new company that the Labour government had tried to get for 8 years and spent almost £18 million on without even getting as much as once line of code of.

The contracts need to be extremely strict and then it works. Old systems may sometimes (as in this case) be completely scrapped because they are so obsolete they don't even work with modern com devices.