NYC Mayor Demands $600M Refund On Software Project

alphadogg writes "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is demanding that systems integrator Science Applications International Corporation reimburse more than $600 million it was paid in connection with the troubled CityTime software project, a long-running effort to overhaul the city's payroll system. 'The City relied on the integrity of SAIC as one of the nation's leading technology application companies to execute the CityTime project within a reasonable amount of time and within budget given the system's size and complexity,' Bloomberg wrote in a letter Wednesday to SAIC CEO Walter Havenstein. CityTime was launched in 2003 at a budget of $63 million, but costs swelled dramatically as the project stumbled along for nearly a decade."

Comments

SAIC ever have any successful projects?

[MagikSlinger]

Last time I heard of them, it was with the failed FBI casebook system. Does SAIC have a generally good delivery rate on projects otherwise?

Re:SAIC ever have any successful projects?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting Anon, because people of interest may find this page.

I have worked with 4 SAIC employees/contractors. I found them to be mediocre. However, that's okay, because we needed a mediocre job done, and were going to pay them mediocre money to do it. They performed the job, and testing revealed about the normal amount of bugs (1 per week or so). My experience with them has been they they were astoundingly average, technically.

However, they were significantly above average in the other parts of the job. They made their software available for regular testing, were timely in delivery of monthly reports, showed initiative in going for above-and-beyond requirements (for extra money), were willing to work with us on emerging requirements, and put together a better-than-average cost estimate. The experience was pleasant overall, and the contract was 5% overbudget, and 10% behind schedule. Being a month late on a one-year project with emerging requirements is acceptable, and mostly our fault.

I would work with them again, but, in general, I wouldn't trust them to build any system from the ground up, as this requires real skill. Modification or maintenance is about where they belong.

Re:SAIC ever have any successful projects?

[rpillala]

I'll wager that they were above average in their rate of having security clearances too. That's one major feature of the "Reinventing Government" era contracting companies. They supply security cleared personnel for whatever work you need.

Re:Time and Attendance

[lpp]

My little company does IT work for small local business, often playing liaison between them and their other vendors. Once I worked with a third party timekeeping software company to help onboard my client onto the system. I was like you, thinking "enter the hours on the day, done". I got to talking with one of the developers and, recognizing there must be some hidden complexity, politely broached the subject. He agreed that yes, it seems simple on the surface, and for a handful of cases it can be. But apparently where things can get bogged down is with adherence to local, state and federal regulations regarding various levels and types of compensation (overtime, sick time, holidays and the like) . He mentioned other issues too but that seemed to be the major bugbear.

Re:Yeah

[Hatta]

The reason it's SOP to underbid the contract is that it's the only way to actually win the contract

Make lawsuits for budget overruns SOP, and that practice completely disappears.

Seriously. Put it in the state constitution that all government contracts will be completed on time and under budget or we get our money back.

Hundreds of millions for payroll software?

[Sloppy]

Yes, I have actually worked in this field. And yes, payroll is more complicated than it seems on the surface. But it's not that complicated. It's not "I can build a dozen F-14s for less" complicated.

The money spent on these types of applications is just obscene. There's gotta be major corruption in the procurement process. And it's everywhere; this isn't just a NYC problem.

Re:Time and Attendance

[gstrickler]

There are a number of factors that bloat and/or doom these projects:

1. No one person or group of people actually know all the specifications.
2. Tracking time for vacations, PTO, sick time, personal time, leave of absence, overtime, etc. varies by jurisdiction, and changes over time.
3. Other specifications may change during development due to legal or corporate policy changes. IRS rulings, FAS rulings, state and federal legislative changes, etc. can all effect the project.
4. Contracts (especially gov't) aren't usually written to allow for significant changes or variation. Changes require a change request, a change cost estimate, and a change order. Work on the change can't begin until all of that is complete, meanwhile the project either continues without the change, or goes on hold.
5. They don't hire a really good software architect to design a flexible system, they just design it to the incomplete (and often inaccurate) specs in the RFP/Contract.
6. The amount of auditing, reporting, and security controls are almost always underestimated.

So, it's far more complex that it first appears.

Having said that, $600M is an insane amount. And the 2GB footprint another poster cited is also absurd. A good software architect could have prevented or minimized both of those.

Re:Yeah

[AK Marc]

The reason it's SOP to underbid the contract is that it's the only way to actually win the contract. Government entities award the contract based on the bid. They don't care that there's no way in hell their sprawling (and ever changing) requirements will drive the cost well past the original bid by several orders of magnitude.

That's still criminal fraud on the part of SAIC. If you know you can't do it for the number quoted, to sign a contract saying you can is fraud. To use improper change control procedures in order to take advantage of a client to make an end run around the contract is fraud. There's almost nothing I can think of that would have SAIC not guilty of fraud.

Not that this excuses any actions by the government. They were incompetent at best, and felonious co-conspirators at the worst. But no likely actions by the city excuse SAIC spending so much more than the contract.