FBI computer system years late and way over budget

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a private sector contractor that screwed up.

It appears they followed the regs. You should congratulate them.

 

[charrison]

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.

There a decent amount of truth to what you are describing. But the fault does not lie solely on the contractors feet either. I have worked this game for a quite a while and some very stupid things going on both sides of the fence. IF the govt has stupid requirements for a contractor, those stupid requirements are going to get filled. Sometimes contractors can get rid of stupid requirements, but sometimes the cant.


I will agree that quality systems will last a long time, but they dont last forever. Many systems the govt has are decades old and the hardware they are running on cant easily be replaced. And the code that runs them lacks the developers to port it, so it is often easier just to start fresh. OF course the govt will try to eat the whole enchilada at once rather than start with the 20% of the system than does 80% of the work and build from there.

 

[sactoking]

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

No, the article didn't mention the name because, from what I've seen so far, it's not the contractor's fault.

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

...the FBI reallocated Sentinel’s planned requirements...
...other requirements have been added to the project...
...the Department of Justice issued new Attorney General Guidelines on Domestic FBI Operations...
...the AG Guidelines were not included in the original Sentinel System Requirements Specifications...

That looks to me like the gov't is at fault for at least some of this.

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.

Bull. Shit.

 

[SlickSnake]

"FBI computer system years late and way over budget"

Of course it is. Is anyone surprised when 2/3 to 3/4 of tax dollars of all government funded projects go to pay the corporation CEOs and board of directors and shareholders FIRST, then the rest of the congress authorized payola left over actually goes to fund the project and lesser employees that create it? Which is exactly why the GAO deliberately fudges about 99% of the data it accumulates, and of course, most major projects that involve any level of secrecy can't even be disclosed or tracked at all.

How convenient for our fascist corporate master overlords who are acting like antisocial parasites with an insatiable appetite for money and greedily eating our tax dollars as fast as a clueless congress can shovel them into their gaping corporate maws.

 

[senseamp]

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183700489

The contractor is Lockheed Martin. So wouldn't be the first project they are over budget on. It's pretty much their MO, try to see how much taxpayer rape their congressional buddies let them get away with.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Those items are usually addressed in the contract/bidding procedures.

Most .gov contracts require a 3rd party payment and performance bond. Basically it is insurance that you will complete the project as specified. If you are unable or unwilling they hire someone else and your bonding company picks up the tab. This is not good if you want to remain in business.

The 2nd issue is usually covered by something called Liquidated Damages. Contracts generally have a set ammount of time (usually in days) for the contract to be substantially complete. After those days run out it costs you a pre-determined sum of money (almost always in the bid docs) for every day longer it takes you to get substantially complete.

Now if the GOVERNMENT requests change orders the contractor can ask for more days to be added to the contract in order to complete the additional work. The .gov can accept or reject those additional days and/or the entire change order. In some cases they can damn near force the contractor to do a change order at or below cost AND fuck them on the days to complete.

When I was estimating and project managing for a commercial roofing contractor we were only allowed to charge 15% for overhead AND profit on change orders. Our overhead alone was over 15%. Due to the nature of the specific industry I would bet you can't find any large commercial roofing contractors who has an overhead of less than 15%. So basically, by the book, we were forced to take a 6% LOSS on change orders IF the costs come out exactly as estimated. I fucking hated doing COs for any .gov work and they can twist the fuck out of your arm to do them at a price that you are hoping to break even with and often less time than you reasonably requested to get it done in.

 

[rudder]

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

Same thing with the FAA trying to upgrade the flying infrastructure.

Government bureaucracy. Contractors have been walking all over government agencies for years. I guess they think they look like less of a failure if they just pay the money rather than haul the contractor to court.

 

[spacejamz]

 

[Vette73]

Same thing with the FAA trying to upgrade the flying infrastructure.

Government bureaucracy. Contractors have been walking all over government agencies for years. I guess they think they look like less of a failure if they just pay the money rather than haul the contractor to court.

I disagree. Many civil persons want to take contractors to court or cut them off from other contracts etc… that do bad work. The problem is politics. Lockheed Martin and others just dump even more money out and threaten congressmen that they will pull out of THEIR state if they don’t get what they want. In the end the congressmen get more “donations” and get to say “I fought to keep XYZ corp from leaving…” and the contractor gets to keep their money and get more contracts.

 

[Scotteq]

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.

I differ most strongly - It is the rule rather than the exception for large government projects in the USA to have their specs change with political and operational whims. This is not to say the contractor(s) are exempt from fault, mind, but rather to point out it really is normal for the project to change - often radically - while it's being implemented.

 

[Codewiz]

And it isn't all the contractors fault.

I can say from personal experience working for a government agency in support of another government agency, no one wants to make a decision and have their ass on the line.

It is next to impossible to get good software requirements out of people. Especially people working in the government. So what happens is you get what you can as far as requirements and run off for a few years implementing only to realize you didn't create anything like they wanted. Not to mention, during the middle of development, the people working with you move to other work and you get people with completely different visions of how things should work.

From a software perspective, some of that has been managed at my command by using Agile Methodology. At least our stakeholders can see something about every two weeks and provide feedback instead of getting that feedback one year down the road.

Here it the root cause IMO. Prior to the 80-90s most software was considered GOTS. You can look it up. The government made a huge push towards COTS. That makes a lot of sense in some areas but not in others. With that push, they also felt that industry could provide the real expertise and government would manage that expertise.

So we have a bunch of unqualified people running complex programs. Imagine your mom running a division at Google or Microsoft. Yeah, it doesn't end well even if the people writing the software are smart.

Slowly the government is reinvesting in their people. They are trying to hire real engineers and scientists but it isn't easy with the pay system. Another issue is that the people hiring aren't smart enough to know who to hire.

All of this is just my opinion but this is how I see it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Working for an FBI contractor is a pain. Not sure if it is the contractor or if it is the FBI forcing the contractor to behave a certain way that does this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Working for an FBI contractor is a pain. Not sure if it is the contractor or if it is the FBI forcing the contractor to behave a certain way that does this.

The tree cartoon is a good explanation for a lot of things. In case of the government it's usually continual feature creep. The CIA went through something like this not long ago. I don't think it's been fully resolved.

 

[bamacre]

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?

You think like this because this is how you spend your money.

They think like this because they aren't spending their money.

 

[her209]

That looks to me like the gov't is at fault for at least some of this.

Even by the contractors estimates, its only 3 million.

 

[sactoking]

Even by the contractors estimates, its only 3 million.

$3 million for the AG changes. No idea how much any other changes may cost.

 

[Fern]

LOL, that's great.

Fern

 

[Fern]

It seems we've seen this with many gov projects; I'm thinking of the huge IRS computer sys upgrade fiasco.

So I'm not inclined to blame the contractor(s).

Fern

 

[sactoking]

It seems we've seen with many gov projects; I'm thinking of the huge IRS computer sys upgrade fiasco.

So I'm not inclined to blame the contractor(s).

Fern

Indeed, sometimes the fiasco is so bad that they make a case study out of it: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+case+study+of+Nevada+DMV+system-a0126933660

Welcome to the Nevada DMV's absolutely atrocious computer system upgrade.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Near as I can tell, contractors luvs their more screwed up clients. From sactoking's linked piece-

Thus the state government of Nevada gave an extension of contract to receive maintenance support of D Consulting from 12/1999 to 6/2002. In total $14 million was already spent for the project Genesis that will cost $35 million eventually after 7-year project period is over (Vogel, 1999).

Don't kid yourselves. They knew they were ridin' the gravy train from the get-go, did everything they could to keep it runnin', too.

 

[lothar]

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

I was under the assumption that he's now suggesting 50:50?
Not sure how that went.

He gave up on them being responsible for 100% of the cost overruns, but I am not aware that he has fully given up on the issue just yet.

 

[charrison]

I was under the assumption that he's now suggesting 50:50?
Not sure how that went.

He gave up on them being responsible for 100% of the cost overruns, but I am not aware that he has fully given up on the issue just yet.

The conversion from contractor to civil service is dead as key people were leaving and it was not saving any money. All the conversions that are started will be finished, but no new ones will be started.

And on a side note, codewize nailed it. I got converted and took a huge paycut in the process. I am gone as soon as a better offer comes along. I am the only c++ guy on staff and when I am gone, they wont even be able to conduct a technical interview to replace me.The govt chose to save money on this contract buy keeping the dev positions one deep and it will cost them big later on.

 

[dmcowen674]

Awesome

Sounds like a lot of people (especially Republicans) enjoying a gravy train have been cut off :thumbsup:

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

Lousey program manager writing the RFP contract bid or yet another brother-in-law deal my guess.

My outfit hasn't seen a plus cost contract since the early eighties. All of our contracts have incentives built into them that if we don't make our contracted commitments we don't get our "bonus" money, which is basically for us to be able to get the contract in the first place, is our profit.

 

[BoberFett]

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....

What a naive fool.