Source Code Dispute in Boston's Big Dig

JoshuaDFranklin writes "Boston's 'Big Dig' is famously long-running and over budget as noted before on Slashdot. But now Computerworld is reporting that a Software Ownership Battle Adds $10M to Cost of 'Big Dig'. The legal dispute was over whether Massachusetts had the right to share Transdyn source code with Honeywell, causing $2.72 million in damages and $7.2 million in costs of a four-month delay in the project."

Comments

Sounds like a dodgy contract to me.

[Blapto]

They just didn't actually buy the software, just waved some money at somebody who let them use it.
The state argued that Dynac had been modified as part of the project and had thus become a customized piece of software not subject to the legal safeguards for off-the-shelf applications.
Bt of a dodgy arguement though...

Open code requirement in contract?

[Jon Abbott]

I wonder if the open code requirement was in the contract -- it sounds like it wasn't...

Transdyn have to source

[basingwerk]

Transdyn have a SCADA system called Dynac. Now Honeywell have a contract to build the next phase of the control system and Transdyn "refused to turn over the Dynac source code to Honeywell, claiming that the technology was proprietary". Do the Project Managers even know that SCADA software is almost always a trade-secret, like Windows or anything else? Just because Dynac had been modified as part of the project does not mean that it is state property, or Open Source or anything at all, unless the contract says that.

A scam from the beginning

[shotgunefx]

The Mass Turnpike Authority are the biggest f'cking crooks.

They shouldn't even exist. It was formed to build the Mass turnpike. The tolls were added to pay the debt of constructing it. It was stipulated by law that it would be toll free once the debts were repaid. It should have been toll free in the 1960s. They keep spending money so it will never be finished.

These are the guys trusted with god knows how many billions?

I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free! People should be in jail for the shit that's going on.

Re:A scam from the beginning

[stomv]

I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free!

No, that's not what happened. At least, not quite. They siezed a parking lot from Frank McCourt (IIRC) using eminent domain, paying him the value of the lot, according to whatever court determines such things. Supposedly they did not end up using it for materials staging (not disposal), and then sold the lot back to McCourt. They sold it back to him for less than they paid for it, 'tis true. McCourt is now looking to sell the lot himself at a large profit.

So, to clarify:
1. The Big Dig paid for the lot from McCourt after using eminent domain to force the sale.
2. It was to be used for staging.
3. The Big Dig sold it back to him, at a loss.

Mismanagement? To be sure. The worst part of the Big Dig? Nope, not by a long shot, in terms of cost, timeliness, risk exposure, nuisance for the city, etc.

Then again, I don't think that the Big Dig is as big a screw-up as everyone makes it out to be. It was an incredibly difficult engineering problem, full of suprises and risk. Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.

Re:It seems...

[MrMickS]

Having worked for a number of consultancy companies don't be so quick to blame them. The problems with large scale procurement of this sort is generally down to a complete lack of knowledge by the purchaser and the desire to have completely new systems every time. I have seen consultancy project both work and fail. The reasons have always been down to management, or lack thereof, of the consultancy from the client.

We have a multi-billion pound project on the way at the moment in the UK. This is running into huge problems as well, who knows what the end cost will be, but I blame the approach rather than the consultants. Instead of spending money on huge monolithic systems with attendant ongoing support tie-ins, the government bodies should be defining the data that needs to be stored, the interfaces to them and the interactions between them. If they produced a well defined model they could then place a general specification out there and let individual authorities purchase compliant systems from the market. The degree of competition that this would introduce would improve the quality and reduce the chance of cost overruns.