Slashdot Mirror
Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?
With all of the recent focus on technology and the promises to continue "getting stuff done" by the US government, Techdirt's Masnick suggests that they might just be the most interesting tech startup to watch this year. "But, of course, talk is cheap (especially in politics). And, while Chopra (and Vivek Kundra, the government's CIO) both actually have a nice track record of accomplishing these sorts of goals in their past jobs, the proof is in what's actually getting done. We'd already mentioned at least one success story with the IT dashboard at USASpending.gov, but can it continue? I have to admit, a second thing that impressed me about Chopra was that, even with such a success, he didn't focus on it. The fact that he got together such a site in such a short period of time is impressive enough, and while he mentioned it in his talks, most of them were much more focused not on what he'd already done, but on what he was going to do — and the plans all seemed quite achievable.
No competent tech startup would pay $18 million for recovery.org
Well, it was recovery.gov not org and really the comments the first time we discussed it noted worse problems. I mean, if they have a full time staff for the site and lots of servers and a lot of research going on, $18 million is about on par with what the government drops on crap like that. Fine. The fact that it was bidless and the company that got it gives tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) is what we really should be upset about. I thought the days of Haliburten were over ...
My work here is dung.
Kundra is at worst a fraud and at best someone who is clueless. Listen to some of the things this guy says. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/
No company in their right mind would pay 18 million for a website. There are many many websites that get more page views are were made for much less. To consider that website a success is a joke.
This was discussed to death the first time this information was posted on Slashdot...
But it isn't like they paid 18 million for a single, static page. From the original link:
The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.
Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.
It's a lot of money, sure. But it isn't like someone went out and spent $18 million to shine up their Facebook page, which is what some people would lead you to believe.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Where did you get the idea that it was a no-bid contract? Or did you just mean that the bidding process was accelerated.
Smartronix won the Recovery.gov contract over two other bidders, SRI International and Accenture, in an accelerated bidding process that only included companies who are part of the multi-vendor Alliant contracting vehicle.
By law, Recovery.gov must be up and reporting stimulus spending in detail by October 10, but Pound said that the normal, full, and open competition process takes an average of 267 days to award a contract. "That's unacceptable and people would be screaming for our heads," he said. Now, the RATB expects the site will be up as early as late August.
Actually, if you used the website, you would know that 30.4% of all government contracts in 2009 were no-bid. You would also know that Steny Hoyer isn't unique in any way and that they ALL do it. In fact, if you want to stay in office, you better be able to report in your election campaign all the jobs you created. Of course, the website will let you know all the money that is going to each congressional district. Everyone has their hands in the pie and USASpending.gov has plenty of pie charts to illustrate that for you. Oh, and it does this very rapidly with no evidence of /.ing.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?