Sunday, October 20, 2013

Gotta wonder:

SO people who know are saying that the site should have cost 2-5 Million dollars to set up and execute.

We, as taxpayers, spent $634 Million. And they are "fixing it" again

Now, while I am sure that the software and hardware vendor made a profit, this  was not a project for which bids were solicited.

This project was GIVEN to a single vendor with no bidding or other competition...Despite government rules which require a competitive bidding process. (and the contractor was fired by the Canadians a while back for failing to complete a similar project after 3 years of delay)

Which leads me to wonder:

What sort of kickbacks, gifting or ghost-employment happened?

We got a website (after 3 years) that doesn't work, written and executed with technology that is at least 10 (ten!) years out of date.  So for 126 times the realistic expected cost, we have an unworkable website that uses outdated technology. Even if the experts are wrong by a factor of 5, we still spent 25 times as much as we should have.

Makes ya wonder, don't it?

Draw your own conclusions.


og said...

There is also some speculation that the site is just a front end, with nothing behind it. Unless this fails horribly, how can single payer be foisted off onto us?

Old NFO said...

Payback, plain and simple... Typical Chiraq politics...