[jljljl]

Reread the article, this is complete nonsense. The $634M number is 6 years of contracts, starting in 2008 (Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010), which doesn't align with his claim that CGI Federal won the contract in 2011.

The solicitation number he uses to filter the USASpending.gov site is also tied to a larger PECOS contract, and not to Healthcare.gov like he claims.

We're being had guys. This is poor reporting at best, or deliberate obfuscation at worst.

[steveplace]

At what number do we stop saying this is hilariously large? Even if the actual cost was 1/10th of that, it's still 60 million.

[jljljl]

How much should it cost to build? This isn't just something a few freelancers can hack together over a weekend.

A lot of people are complaining about the cost, even at the $60M-$100M, but I haven't seen anyone explain what costs would be reasonable for something at this scale and with the security + privacy requirements it likely entails.

[driverdan]

Maybe he got the total wrong for healthcare.gov but $634M should be enough to build and run every government website in the US for more than a decade.

[jonknee]

That's a ridiculous statement. $63M a year to build, run, maintain and host unknown numbers of web sites (thousands!) and services that process trillions of dollars annually seems absurd.

The total budget for all government websites isn't important (for starters they aren't paid for out of one bucket), it's just important that individually each one is managed competently.

[aperrien]

> $634M should be enough to build and run every government website in the US for more than a decade.

And you know the requirements for the next ten years of computing technology how?

[aestra]

You know that not all government websites are public facing, right?