Re: another failed attempt at database independence

  • From: "Gints Plivna" <gints.plivna@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:27:34 +0300

I don't know the exact process for DoD and in USA as such but assuming
it is more or less the same as here theoretically it should be OK. DoD
or whatever else governmental agency needs something. They set their
requirements and wait for offers explaining how to do that and how it
costs and then choose the cheapest one satisfying requirements. Of
course in reality there are many caveats in decision process for
example requirements are too open, decision process is not completely
determined, offer evaluators are simply too stupid to evaluate them
properly etc. After the decision has been made there are some
opportunities also to mess it all up: including some new requirements,
excluding some old, making some changes in budget usually no more than
10% of original budget, and the main problem for governmental agency
people is the feeling that it is not money from their pockets, it is
tax-payers money i.e. everybody's money which effectively reduces to
nobody's money. So in the hands of careless, stupid and/or "determined
to spend money for friendly private organization" governmental
managers this process of course can be ruined as well as most probably
every other process.

Gints Plivna

2008/5/7, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Well, before you go and blame the DoD, blame the process that congress stuck
> them with.  Its amazing to me that anything works considering how much of it
> has to be done by the low bidder.  The rule that always gets me is the one
> that requires them to sit back and wait for bids, instead of going out and
> shop around for the best price/performance.  Its entirely possible in this
> instance, that someone thought they could save software licensing fees, and
> instead of going out and looking around and pricing things out to see if
> that was indeed the case, they had to write it into the contract and have it
> bid that way, without knowing if it was a good decision to begin with.
> The DoD is stuck with the rules that congress made for them, and just
> keeping track of them can be a full time job.
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Rick Ricky <ricks12345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Here is a newer article, but it does not have any money numbers in it. I
> checked on it. I belive the $600 million + includes the DoD total costs,
> which include their user acceptance testing, their requirements, and project
> management, plus they pay many millions of dollars to a third party testing
> group to test the applications functionality. I think that is where the
> higher number comes from.
> >
> >
> >
> > here is another old one:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

Other related posts: