The FBI Software Upgrade That Wasn't

Davemania writes "Washington Post reports that the FBI's attempt to modernize their department has once again failed. The 170 million dollar Virtual case File system, the agency's second attempt to go paperless is reported to be useless. The finger seems to be pointing at the FBI leadership, greedy contractors and bad software management." From the article: "It appeared to work beautifully. Until Azmi, now the FBI's technology chief, asked about the error rate. Software problem reports, or SPRs, numbered in the hundreds, Azmi recalled in an interview. The problems were multiplying as engineers continued to run tests. Scores of basic functions had yet to be analyzed. 'A month before delivery, you don't have SPRs,' Azmi said. 'You're making things pretty. . . . You're changing colors.'"

Comments

I love you

[neonprimetime]

I love helping you /.ers out. Instead of spending painstaking hours clicking thru multiple page news stories, I sit here and quickly provide you with printer friendly links

Government Contract$

[Billosaur]

But the problems were not the FBI's alone. Because of an open-ended contract with few safeguards, SAIC reaped more than $100 million as the project became bigger and more complicated, even though its software never worked properly. The company continued to meet the bureau's requests, accepting payments despite clear signs that the FBI's approach to the project was badly flawed, according to people who were involved in the project or later reviewed it for the government.

And that is how you get rich doing work for the government. The government agency comes up with a half-assed plan, you put in a low bid, they accept and start handing you checks, and you make things look pretty, all the while hiding the flaws. In then end, you've become rich, the goverment runs a deficit, and the American taxpayer foots the bill.

Project Managers

[Epeeist]

Spit.

The trouble with project managers (and security people) is that they have a checklist mentality.

PM: Have you done this as yet.

You: No, there is no need for it

PM: But I need to get it checked off on my plan

You: It shouldn't be on the plan in the first place

PM: But it is on the plan, so I need to get it checked off. When are you going to do it.

And so on.

How is this news?

[EnderGT]

The FBI abandoned the VCF program in 2005. The replacement program, called Sentinel, is being led by Lockheed Martin. It is budgeted at $425 million, and won't be ready until 2009.

Rereading the summary, the submitter has it wrong - "FBI's attempt to modernize their department has once again failed" implies that Sentinel has failed - which is definitely not the content of the article. Even the snippet quoted is about VCF having problems, not Sentinel.

Re:Government Inefficiancy

[GMontag]

I am a defense contractor, Defense Financial Manager.

Actually, the funds are someone's money. The Contracting Officers are legally "on-the-hook" for the things they sign for. If they authorize payment for something that was not delivered and the government does not get it's money back, then they are supposed to be liable for the money they released.

If they continue working for the government a payment schedule is arranged and they have money deducted from their salary. If they get any other money from the government (ex:retirement) that is used toward the debt.

The rules over here at DoD tend to be much more strict than at other agencies, contrary to what some in the media would lead you to believe.

I hear that one of the problems now, with non DoD activities, is that there are not many prosecutions going on for that sort of thing. Also, the way these stories are written, there may not have been any wrongdoing at all (check my .sig) other than the exagerations by the reporter. It could be a case of a badly written contract that the government accepted, but if the terms for payment were met then nobody is on the hook for the money, but should be losing their job.

In my case, since I am just a contractor and not a government officer, in this role, (in another position I am sometimes in uniform for the Reserves) I am never on the hook for the agency funds, but my customer is and if his error is due to my doing bad work then I am at risk of losing my job, which can happen with no notice.

Not New Story sheds no new light

[porslap]

full disclosure: I wrote the "Who Killed the Virtual Case File" story for Spectrum, which ran last September.

Here's some more food for thought about the "reporting" behind the FBI story:

What's the news angle that warrants front page attention in the Post? That the Post reporters obtained the "unreleased" Aerospace report? Not news: the report was released to Spectrum at the end of April after nine months of litigating a Freedom of Information Act Request.

All the Post reporters had to do was google "virtual case file" and voila! the story pops up as number 1, right there for them to rewrite!

But say they are too lazy to bother googling. They just want the summary. The Spectrum article is the basis for the Wikipedia Entry on the Virtual Case File and the only external link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File

The Spectrum article was the first and until the Post article, the only one to mention Matthew Patton, who was unearthed by dint of investigative reporting nowhere acknowledged in the Post article.

The Post article purports to turn a spotlight on SAIC, in part by quoting David Kay, the Iraq weapons inspector, who was a former SAIC VP--but who had absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the VCF project.

The Post article uncritcally takes FBI CIO Azmi's word that the follow up project Sentinel is on-budget and on-time, when other news outlets have recently reported about a growing sense within the FBI that this project is doomed to a fate similar to the VCF's.

The Santa Monica bridge reconstruction

[edremy]

The I-10 bridge rebuild following the Northridge earthquake: details here

This is how big government projects *should* be done. Hire a good contractor, set a minimum and then give bonuses for good performance and penalties for bad. Did the final tally cost a lot in bonuses? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes- they fixed a major problem in amazing time and did it correctly, plus they had a bunch of blue-collar folks make serious coin working triple time, all of which got plowed back into the local economy.

You can argue it wasn't on budget due to the bonuses, but it was assumed from the beginning they'd be paying out. Since the daily economic loss to LA was higher than the daily bonus for finishing early, I'd argue it was actually under budget.