[timcash]

Please provide some more background on why the project was created and the ultimate goal. Without that I do not really buy your argument as I have also worked with government contracts (including cost plus) and spent six year in the US Air Force. The problems are these. (1) Did they really need this system in the first place? Example: The F22 Raptor a fifth generation multipurpose fighter. I would argue that we do not really need this system but, sadly the people I worked for (Air Force Generals) the guys who create the ideas and sign the contracts did not even think to ask that question. Building another fighter was a forgone conclusion to them. It was purely about building something and not about defending against a real threat or even a perceived future threat. To the guys who run the Air Force (former fighter pilots primarily) of coarse you need a new plane. (2) Are you building yet another proprietary system on top of other proprietary systems. Example: JSTARS or the E8-C built by Northrop. This system collects a bunch of data about movement on the ground. The problem is Northrop created a proprietary mechanism for getting the data off of the plane. So now the government has to buy the plane and the system to get the data. (3) Was there another way to solve the problem? Example: Microsoft Sharepoint. There are so many sharepoint sites setup in the DOD it is complete waste. Every single unit thinks they need a sharepoint site because other units have sharepoint sites. No one is bothering to ask; hey instead of all setting up our own site why dont we just create a big repository where everyone can drop there (docs, ppts, xls, pdfs, etc...) and tag them with the unit they are from. So I would ask did you need this emails system? Are you perpetuating the problem of continuing to build proprietary systems? Is there another way to accomplish this task outside of an email system? Why did you need t1 lines by the way? Now to the Hammer and the bolt example you give. Instead of building a new bolt for every project and then having to test it and build spares etc... build a bolt that can be used on many projects. I have been in these contract meetings. The private companies intentionally build as many one off solution as possible so we have no choice but, to keep coming back to them. You say build a company and bid on contracts. If you work in contracts you know it is not that simple. I would love to if I had some help navigating the bureaucracy... Again give some more background on that project if you can.

[jcnnghm]

We're talking about two different things. The government decides its requirements, not the contractor. Essentially, the government says what it wants, and how you are to deliver it.

For the email example, they said how many servers, how many T1 lines, and how powerful they all had to be. They also wanted usage logs from the T1's for capacity planning. The contractor doesn't have input there.

That's essentially the case with the bolts as well. It's in the specification, the contractor doesn't have the power to say we are going to use these other bolts because they're standard. Items are specified in a specific way for a reason, with bolts, it's because those particular bolts absolutely have to stand up to the rated forces, because they're likely to experience them, with combat and all.

[timcash]

Right so the people creating the contracts are not doing their research. We need to spend more time thinking about how we do things so we dont pay for the same thing over and over. We need a way to make the fact that this bolt has been built public and accessible so if someone needs something similar they can contact the right folks and ask. Why would they say how many t1 lines are need and how many servers? That is silly. What if someone could get the same effect with less power and bandwidth? why wouldn't we use the superior solution. Again to make your point we would need to know what the ultimate goal of the system is and determine if indeed that was the only way to solve the problem. That is the whole point of having competition after all.

[jcnnghm]

"We need a way to make the fact that this bolt has been built public and accessible so if someone needs something similar they can contact the right folks and ask."

Not really. If you need a bolt that absolutely needs to be able to withstand the rated forces at the specified size and weight, it needs to be non-destructively tested. The expensive part isn't the bolt, it's the testing.

You don't want it to be tested when it's the last bolt left in a redundant pair and it sheers off.

"Why would they say how many t1 lines are need and how many servers? That is silly. What if someone could get the same effect with less power and bandwidth?"

Because they did a needs analysis and calculated the probable amount of bandwidth, and decided that redundancy was necessary as well. This stuff isn't just a guess, it is based on hard data.

[timcash]

Can you provide the analysis? It seems like you are doing some hand waving and have resolved that fact that this solution was the only solution which I am skeptical of. Perhaps you can provide the RFP?

[jcnnghm]

I should elaborate a little more about the e-mail contract. The government put together a list of specifications. They wanted all of the equipment guaranteed, and they wanted to pay only a per-email fee. The specification was mainly to make sure the bidders knew exactly what was expected, and what they needed to produce.

The idea was that it costs about $0.35 per piece including design, postage, etc., to send a direct mail advertisement, whereas they could get the entire electronic marketing infrastructure, and pay a fraction of that per-piece. The whole thing was basically a clever pricing structure to get away from direct mail to much cheaper electronic delivery with guaranteed cost savings to the taxpayer because if the system sucked, they just wouldn't use it to send messages. But if it was good, they'd use it instead of the regular marketing materials, saving substantial amounts of money.

Hence why the pricing is higher than it would need to be, because of the risk.

[timcash]

Why not put out a contract that says. We need to get this information (I) to these people (P) at below this cost (C). If a company designs a system that can do that same thing in a completely new way at 1/100th the cost who cares how they did it.

[gridspy]

Perhaps notes taped to bricks delivered by volunteers wasn't the sort of message they were trying to send.