President Obama weathered years of Republican obstruction, a Supreme Court challenge and even a Government shut down to protect the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Now it looks like the whole thing could unravel because of the Byzantine architecture of Federal Procurements. How is it possible that the country that invented the computer, the internet and the website cannot launch a successful e-commerce enterprise after 3 years and 634 million dollars? Has the Washington Game gotten so bad that it can threaten to take down a Presidency?
The United States is a colossus in the technology sector of the economy. American's invented the integrated circuit that made modern desktop computers possible. We invented the personal computer, the operating systems that make them run, and the software that makes them useful. The United States government created the internet and its precursor, ARAPNET. American ingenuity transformed that nerdy platform into the engine of the modern economy. The biggest names in technology Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos , as well as lesser known but equally important names like Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce are all Americans. So it is no small irony that the Affordable Care Act is in such dire trouble, not because of Republican obstruction or Democratic incompetence, but because of the failure of a website.
The website is just a symptom of a larger failure in the way the Government procures large systems. No one should be surprised that the endeavor is late and over budget. The original budget for the ACA Website was 300 million. The cost to date is currently $634,320,919.00 and we all know that the delivery date of October 1, 2013 was badly missed. That is no different than the Gerald R. Ford Class aircraft carrier, currently 2 billion dollars over budget and only 70 percent complete as of its launch date.
The common thread that binds websites and weapons systems is that the Federal Government does not hire the best qualified companies for these important jobs, but rather those who are best at playing the procurement game. Think of the companies you associate with e-commerce: Amazon, Progressive Insurance, Pay Pal. Now consider who the government hired to for the most significant software enterprise in recent government history: CGI Federal Inc., the U.S. unit of a Canadian firm CGI Group ($93.7 million) the Prime Contractor, Quality Software Services Inc. ($55.1 million) Data Hub, The MITRE Corp., ($22 million) Project Management , Genova Technology ($16 million) information technology Terremark Federal Group, a unit of Verizon ($15.5 million) cloud computing services. These are all companies that have multiple federal contracts. Some of them, like CGI Federal have failed to deliver before. Again and again, Government Contractors deliver projects late, balloon budgets, and sometimes perpetrate outright fraud. Still they are considered uniquely qualified to provide services to the government, not because they are really good at something, but because they are really good at cultivating government connections.
Federal contracts should be awarded to the best available applicant. If your chief advantage is that you've worked for the government before, then we can expect more of the same. In this case, unrivalled expertise in computer programming should have trumped having a former Senator on your board, or a well connected former congressional staffer on your payroll.
This should be an issue that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. If we need to look for places in the federal budget to save money, I would suggest that the best place to start is to stop rewarding bad behavior. With half of former Senators going into lobbying after leaving office, I'm not optimistic that anything will change soon.