Re: another failed attempt at database independence
- From: "Andrew Kerber" <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ricks12345@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:28:13 -0500
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.
>
> http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3486872
>
> here is another old one:
> http://www.fcw.com/print/12_26/news/95360-1.html
>
>
>
--
Andrew W. Kerber
'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
Other related posts:
