[pkfrank]

>Also, a lot of people have mentioned cronyism, which I think is baseless. CGI Federal already had contracts for Medicare.gov and CMS.gov, so when CMS had to build healthcare.gov, CGI was an obvious choice.

You may be correct, but arguing that "because we generally get these contracts, we were an obvious choice" does little to defuse assertions of cronyism.

[3minus1]

> "because we generally get these contracts, we were an obvious choice"

There are good reasons a government body might want to give a contract to someone they worked with before. There's a previous track record of success, and they know that the company already has expertise/solutions for their specialized requirements (i.e. section 508 compliance).

[walls]

> There's a previous track record of success

Where? Definitely not the Canadian Firearms Registry, or the sites listed previously.

[genericresponse]

Full Disclosure: I'm not certain who 3minus1 is, but I used to work on the project he/she works on.

There was content at Healthcare.gov prior to 10/1. The applications that delivered the content to the site had very similar function to the ACA application. Intaking consumer information and outputting potential insurance options. Also, gathering insurer data to do this. Not a full prototype, but damn close. I like how CGI Federal is taking it in the teeth when there are a number of contractors who worked on this. QSSI, Experian, Etc.

[hga]

Elsewhere in this subthread I attest to medicare.gov's high quality.

But that said, why should your demonstrated competence translate into success in a program at its launch? Medicare and Medicaid were both established in 1965, long long before the web.

On the other hand, did you have the contract for medicare.gov when the Part D prescription program was launched in 2006? Given all the interfaces with providers that sounds vaguely comparable to this site.

[sigzero]

I don't think you are going to win any points here considering the outcome.