Contractors Who Built Healthcare.gov Website Blame Each Other For All The Problems

from the nice-try dept

Thu, Oct 24th 2013 5:13am — Mike Masnick

With all the problems associated with the Healthcare.gov rollout, a bunch of fingers (including ours) pointed at the usual list of government contracting cronies who built the thing. The deal was done under an existing contract (so no open bidding) and involved the same "usual suspects" who have been connected to a number of other large government computer systems debacles. Not included anywhere in the list were companies with experience building large-scale web services -- which you'd think would be helpful here. However, in testimony before Congress, the contractors are insisting that it's not their fault. CGI Federal was the main contractor behind the site, and Cheryl Campbell, a senior VP from the company, is in charge of trying to point fingers elsewhere, mainly at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which CGI Federal says was in charge of the actual building of the site.

CMS serves the important role of systems integrator or "quarterback" on this project and is the ultimate responsible party for the end-to-end performance of the overall Federal Exchange.

Basically: it's the government's fault. We just build the damn thing. If they didn't tell us to build the right thing, or test it properly, well, it's their fault. Also, someone else we won't name is really at fault:

Another contractor was awarded the contract for the Data Services Hub portion of the Federal Exchange.

Oh, and also another unnamed contractor:

The first set of issues for users dealt with the enterprise identity management (or EIDM) function provided by another contractor, which allows users to create secure accounts.

Of course, it's not too difficult to figure out who the "other" contractor is. Because it's on the panel too. QSSI built the Data Services Hub and the "EIDM" functions mentioned, and QSSI is owned by Optum, whose executive vice president Andy Slavitt is testifying as well. And, you know, it's not his fault. First, he insists that the Data Service Hub worked splendidly throughout, no matter what anyone else might say. EIDM, of course, is having some trouble, but that? Why, other vendors are to blame there too:

It is relevant to note that the EIDM tool is only one piece of the federal marketplace’s registration and access management system, which involves multiple vendors and pieces of technology. While the EIDM plays an important role in the registration system, tools developed by other vendors handle critical functions such as the user interface, the e-mail that is sent to the user to confirm registration, the link that the user clicks on to activate the account, and the web page the user lands on. All these tools must work together seamlessly to ensure smooth registration

In other words, if only those other vendors did their job right, the whole thing would work much better. Oh yes, also someone (nameless) decided to change the specs at some late date:

It appears that one of the reasons for the high concurrent volume at the registration system was a late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before they could browse for insurance products. This may have driven higher simultaneous usage of the registration system that wouldn't have occurred if consumers could "window shop" anonymously.

The final note, going back to CGI Federal, is to remind Congress that building websites is really hard.

Unfortunately, in systems this complex with so many concurrent users, it is not unusual to discover problems that need to be addressed once the software goes into a live production environment. This is true regardless of the level of formal end-to-end performance testing -- no amount of testing within reasonable time limits can adequately replicate a live environment of this nature.

That's true to some extent, but it doesn't excuse many, many of the overall problems with the system, which did not appear to be built with any recognition of how to build a high-traffic transactional website. While CGI Federal would like to point fingers at everyone else, it was its name on the contract, which it received through questionable means, and it should take at least some responsibility for it. Perhaps, if it was so "complex," it shouldn't have taken on the job.

HHRG 113 IF00 Wstate CambellC 20131024 (PDF)HHRG 113 IF00 Wstate CambellC 20131024 (Text)

HHRG 113 IF00 Wstate SlavittA 20131024 (PDF)HHRG 113 IF00 Wstate SlavittA 20131024 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blame, contractors, healthcare.gov
Companies: cgi federal, optum, qssi

57 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 4:03am

He-who-must-not-be-named did it all, we swear!

J. K. Rowling approves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 4:06am

You know, if it's really that hard for them to build a working site, sounds like it might be time to give the job to some other company, or at least put the offer of such on the table. I bet the possibility of losing a multimillion dollar contract, potentially multiple such contracts in the future, would get them to shape up quite fast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 5:27am

This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
There are people who support this and people who don't.

Among the people who support it are numerous programmers, testers, system analysts, system admins, network architects, etc.

It would have been much cheaper to simply have the feds manage the project, open-source the entire thing, and let those who support it perform the development.

Yes, yes, yes, I know that has its drawbacks: but this cost a frigging fortune and IT DOESN'T WORK. How much worse could it possibly be? And not only that: this monstrosity isn't open-source, therefore it's (a) insecure and (b) insecurable. (I trust everyone is aware that security by obscurity never works, therefore closed-source code is insecure by its very nature. Anyone who isn't aware should undertake remedial education in security fundamentals.)

Some very impressive projects have been built in this manner -- and many of them have demonstrated the ability to scale radically when required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 5:54am

Integrator failure
When you have a large failure like the ACA web site, the blame starts with the integrator which was Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They are the ones that split up the work to the contractors, identify requirement, and accept the finished software. If they fail at this there is no way the site will work properly. The contractors probably did not do a good job here, but even if they had the project would still fail with bad system integration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
madasahatter (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:10am

Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
The advantage Open Source is that anyone can contribute security patches not just the internal security team. Thus "all bugs are shallow" fits. The problem with closed source is the patch team has a finite amount of time a probably plenty of bugs to patch. Some must be delayed because of time constraints and inevitably judgment errors will be made.

Your point about all code having errors, bugs, and security mistakes is true for any reasonably large project. Open Source says help us make the code better by inviting others to help and submit code patches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
madasahatter (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:15am

Re: Integrator failure
I read there are 55 contractors involved plus numerous preexisting systems. Something as simple as basic the data format for an individual's personal information must be specified in gory detail so everyone knows what it is. From the comments the insurance companies about garbled data, it appears even this basic information does not have a standard format within the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JohnG (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:18am

Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
There are laws against that kind of operation so the gov't couldn't just "open-source the entire thing".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:19am

Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
yes, lets make it into a 'open-source' Vs. 'proprietary' argument, that's they way!!!

when we ALL KNOW, it's a Democrat Vs. Republican argument, Republicans are due for a win, 'anytime now'.

Its not like the republicans are skill at picking fights they can win or anything !

At least Mr Masnick makes ONE person supporting them, again, they cant even agree on anything amongst themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:21am

Re: Re: Integrator failure
so that is the contractors and developers fault ?? How ?

So what they are saying might actually be RIGHT, and what TD is saying is probably WRONG.. Ahh ok, thanks for clearing tha tup for us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:24am

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
Not to mention the thousands of "open source" web site that are routinely hacked, and yet you believe they are somehow more secure !!! OK..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:24am

Looking for a new job?
Should I be amused that CMS has posted 3 job openings for IT Specialists on USAJobs?

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/352656900
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vastrightwing, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:27am

Excuses
1 Companies competent at implementing viable systems are not good at procuring government contracts.

2 There is no accountability: no one cares if it doesn't work. The contractor still gets paid.

3 The contractors built what was on the spec. It's not their fault the spec was wrong and incomplete.

4 Obama-care is a tax, not a viable health care benefit. The government will get their tax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:36am

Re: Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
Thousands of closed-source websites are also routinely hacked, so what's your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:40am

Re: Looking for a new job?
"Should I be amused that CMS has posted 3 job openings for IT Specialists on USAJobs?"

Er, no. Every government contractor always has job openings for IT specialists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:41am

Re: Re: Looking for a new job?
Uh, USAJobs is the job site for direct hire jobs with the federal gov't - not contractor positions, actual feds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:46am

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
What laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:57am

Re:
It wouldn't make any difference. The budget and release dates were determined by a bill passing rather than any actual project planning. That was always the problem and giving the job to another company wouldn't have changed a thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
You could have just told us you haven't the faintest understanding of the discussion at hand directly rather than being all circuitous about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 6:59am

Having worked in construction for 40 years I can assure the following statements are true:

1. You can not build it right if it is not designed right.

(Constructions firms do the building; design firms do the designing and rarely are the two the same firm.)

2. Design firms can not design it right if the design specifications are wrong.

(Design firms do the designing; project management firms make the specifications and rarely are the two the same.)

3. Project Management firms can not write the correct specifications if the owners do not know what they want and differences of opinion of what it is they want.

(The owners of the health care system is the American people.)

It is impossible to make a system work when there is no conscientious on what it is the system is suppose to do.

If one wants to understand how big a debacle the health care situation is one really needs to return to another era around 1900 and recall how Americans viewed alcohol.

Across the nation there were saloons. Saloons were not like present days bars. There was alcohol, gambling, and whores. Killings, robberies, and sexual disease were common combined with a living standard so low that some of today's more repugnant areas of degenerated third world poverty stricken cities would appear prosperous by comparison.

As this unsavory section of town was unacceptable to be elitists of the day a reform movement was launched. The 18th was passed ushering in the most violent ear of American existence since the bloody days of the Civil War. Streets of major cities rain red with blood from mob hits.

The debacle formally ended with the passage of the 21th amendment.

More relevant the Republican is still hated for the elitist know it all that produced the 18th amendment and the single minded psychology of religious fundamentalists controlling government.

This is not going to end well for the Democrats.

But it is going to take some time. It took 65 years plus for the Republicans to reach the depth of hatred they had in the 1930 and they still have not recovered anywhere near their status of 1900.

Also, health care will be just as completely different in the future as alcoholic and saloons are today (from 1900).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:03am

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
This is part of the problem. You can't even have a discussion about how the rollout should have been run without asshats running in and screaming about how it's a partisan debate. I'm sorry that you feel this particular example of government incompetence is a black mark for your particular party but that doesn't really speak to anyone else's party affiliation (or lack thereof) nor does it address the issues raised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dkone, 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:09am

You are missing the real target here
I see this website debacle as a shift in focus from the real conversation, which is health care act itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Transmitte (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:11am

It's time for the Blame Game! (or is it Blame-Gate?)
And here I thought only cockroaches could scurry like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Canuck, 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:17am

Hakers and cyber-terrorism claims...
I'm surprised no one in the government has come out and said it must be those pesky "hackers" that are causing all the problems. Then insist they need to pass some more "cyber" laws to help deal with them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:21am

Its the "free" money, not the product
Was the contract awarded as a political reward?

This may be similar to Solyndra where a company gets a so-called "loan" not to actually produce anything useful, but to get "free" taxpayer $$$$.

Since the website developers may have been paid for "work" already done, will bankruptcy be the next step?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:39am

they may have done nothing right on the web site front but they have learned something during their time working with the government,

'admit nothing, blame everyone else'!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 7:53am

The truly sad part...
The truly sad part is when this is all over, nothing will have been done. No heads will roll, no money will be returned to the government (i.e. taxpayers) and nothing will be done any different the next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:07am

Re: Its the "free" money, not the product
This more or less answers your question with a 'Yes.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:09am

Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
There is nearly no way that the number of developers needed to develop this site, would donate their time to an open source project to do so.

Plus open sourcing the software is only part of the battle. This system needs to push/pull information from multiple databases (not open source btw, loaded with personal information) from multiple agencies. That is an integration problem that open source would not have been able to solve.

I hadn't actually heard yet that this was a no-bid contract. That was a serious error. This project was too big in scope to be slid in under another contract. That is a key driver in how and why its failing spectacularly. It was a huge development effort, but from the contract side is was viewed as a trivial add on.

I, know, its shocking to refer to a $400 million project as trivial, but that seems to be how the contractors treated its development and integration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:13am

Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
It would have been much cheaper to simply have the feds manage the project, open-source the entire thing, and let those who support it perform the development.

Ummmm...the feds were managing the project...managing the way they always do. To failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Re: Looking for a new job?
I don't think it is used exclusively for federal gov't jobs. Pretty sure our city uses the same website for hiring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
That is an integration problem that open source would not have been able to solve.

Open sourcing this would certainly not have guaranteed success, and the code itself is only one small part of the scope of the project, but... the code portion of this is certainly something that can be handled through the OSS model. Similar problems, on a similar scale, are handled with OSS code every day.

Personally, the problem with this project has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the code is open source or not, and everything to do with incompetence on the part of the contractors. Open sourcing would not have affected that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:44am

A different perspective
I'm a programmer that has worked for a CMS subcontractor for many years (no, not one of the ones involved with this system) and I have to say that the comment that CMS is (at least partly) to blame may be dead on.

CMS is notorious for requirements that leave out most of the details. Imagine that you raise goats in your back yard and need a fence to keep them in. If CMS were writing the RFP (request for proposal), it might ask for "a fence" and when pushed to specify what kind of fence, they might answer "we really like picket fences". Then after you quote them a picket fence and start building it, someone at CMS would ask... "Ummm... will this keep the goats in?". And when you ask "why didn't you put that in the requirements", you are answered with "you should have just known"....

And no, I'm NOT making this up - I've been in the meetings where this exact reasoning was used.

Oh, and I do know that on this particular project at the state level, requirements that were needed to hit the MANDATED Oct 1 implementation date weren't finalized on Oct. 1 by CMS. Of course it's not all CMS's fault - they have to do what congress tells them to do even if it's impossible (in many cases congress sets the implementation date without any input from the folks that are going to implement it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:47am

No. no, no, no, it was Bush' fault, er, no the republicans fault, er, the people yea that's it the people are at fault for not knowing how to navigate a wonderful website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
Not sure how you come to blame the Republicans here; guess you went to the Obama school of "It's Bush's fault". This problem rests squarely on Obama and the Dems. Its their law, their administration, their website, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 9:04am

Re: The truly sad part...
Heads will roll, just not the ones responsible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 9:13am

Re: A different perspective
you are answered with "you should have just known"

This problem isn't limited to CMS (or even the software industry) by a long shot. It's everywhere.

A part of the problem is with the contractors who accept these vague requirements and offer up bids on them without actually knowing what the work entails. An RFP that just says "build a fence (we like picket)" is obviously trouble to begin with and shouldn't be bid on without further clarification.

Any contractors willing to bid on something like that are, themselves, being irresponsible in that it is literally impossible to know what to bid. Good contractors would just chuckle and throw the RFP in the waste basket.

This disaster is the result of problems in the industry across the board. Despite what people seem to think (this is an example of government screwing things up), this is actually something that happens frequently in the purely private sector as well. It's just easy to ignore it until it happens to a multimillion dollar project.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ipgrunt (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 9:26am

Re: Looking for a new job?
Looks like this job is covered under executive Federal Employees Health Benefits, and exempt to Obamacare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D, 24 Oct 2013 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking for a new job?
The usajobs.gov is for federal jobs.

There is a second site, governmentjobs.com, that is for any government job including city, county and state job openings. Once in a while a federal job is posted on governmentjobs.com, especially hard to fill jobs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: A different perspective
On the other hand the fact that similar things happen in the private sector doesn't mean the government didn't screw this thing up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
Cronyism breeds incompetence so ultimately that's a government problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 10:20am

Optum
I used to be employed by Optum. Which used to be called Ingenix. They changed their name due to some legal troubles.
I am suprised to see Optum added to the list of government cronys because of their past legal problems including going before congress to justify themselves. My guess is someone's palms somewhere have been greased with $$$.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 10:54am

A suitable contactor must exist somewhere
Surely there is a company that knows how to build web applications that has built them on a massive scale and garnered the hatred of copyright maximalists everywhere.

Oh, that's why the government wouldn't want to talk to them.

Or vice versa. Maybe they don't want to work on a job mired down in bureaucracy and politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 11:23am

Re:
> You know, if it's really that hard for them
> to build a working site, sounds like it might
> be time to give the job to some other company,
> or at least put the offer of such on the table.

Someone (or multiple someones) need to go to jail over this whole thing, not just lose a contract. Instead, the same people who already flushed a half-billion dollars of our tax money down the crapper are going to get even more money to fix it. And the government bureacrats in charge, like Sibelius, instead of losing their jobs, apparently "have the full confidence of the president", at least they do according to his spokeshole, Jay Carney.

And they *really* need to stop trying to minimize their gross incompetence by calling the problems with the Obamacare website "glitches" and "technical snags".

A complete catastrophic failure of a system built on 10-year-old outdated web tech is not a "glitch" under any commonly accepted definition of that term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
My point is that this isn't a problem even remotely unique to government, so it isn't a "government" problem in that sense. It's a business problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: A different perspective
Where did I say the government didn't screw this up? What I'm saying is that the government is only one, and not even the most significant, of the screwups here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alt0, 24 Oct 2013 @ 12:59pm

Re: Looking for a new job?
Too bad they will probably get a furlow in January.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alt0, 24 Oct 2013 @ 1:14pm

Welcome to launch day!
One source the government would never consider (but would most likely do the best job) is the video game industry.

They build entire worlds that get populated by MILLIONS of players in A SINGLE DAY! (all of whom need to register and set up payment)

OK there's some lag, maybe a que to wait in a while, but most have it down to almost a science these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 2:02pm

Re: Welcome to launch day!
The last few launches of major online games that I can remember have been disasters on the same scale as healthcare.gov.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 2:12pm

LEARNED LONG AGO..
To many cooks spoil the broth..

I find this hilarious.
3-4 companies all doing PARTS of a program..

THEN SLAP them together and say it works..
WITH OUT TESTING??

The States did this years ago, for State Medicaid..SO WHATS THE PROBLEM??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 24 Oct 2013 @ 3:56pm

Shorter Obamacare
Oamacare : Yesterday's technology, delivered next week, at the latest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re: This could have easily been avoided -- at very low cost
"There is nearly no way that the number of developers needed to develop this site, would donate their time to an open source project to do so."

Nobody is saying they should donate their time. Ask all the Red Hat employees.

Learn the difference between free speech and free beer.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=free+speech+not+free+beer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 5:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Integrator failure
Because it is up to the developers to specify the data formats? You know, the people building the system?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2013 @ 5:24pm

Re:
Across the nation there were saloons. Saloons were not like present days bars. There was alcohol, gambling, and whores. Killings, robberies, and sexual disease were common combined with a living standard so low that some of today's more repugnant areas of degenerated third world poverty stricken cities would appear prosperous by comparison.

Guess you've never been to a Bikers Bar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 25 Oct 2013 @ 2:20am

All's Well That Ends Well.
As far as I'm concerned, the main point is that the ObamaCare people, under pressure, agreed to accept paper applications. I downloaded the form, and found that I could print it off with Acrobat 6.04, the most advanced version available for Windows 95/98/ME. That represents eighteen years of backwards compatibility.

The ObamaCare form is not as good as the Internal Revenue Service's downloadable tax forms, which supports fill-ins with Acrobat 6.xx. When I do my taxes, I start with a text file containing the information for the previous year, make a copy, modify it to reflect this year's information, paste numbers into the downloaded Acrobat file, and print it off. Most of the information does not change from one year to the next, so this is a quite economical proceeding. From the IRS's point of view, the advantage of fill-ins is that they are machine-readable, being printed in a designated font and a designated color. As against these technical advantages, the ObamaCare form is good for five years rather than one year.

To my mind, a paper form is the obvious and appropriate way to hand something like taxes, or real estate transactions such as mortgages and leases, or high-stakes insurance. "Put it down in black and white," they say, in other words, put it down on paper. The web site was an exercise in people playing at being techno-modern in the first place. That was why it proliferated useless JavaScript. The Web works reasonably well for buying small articles on Amazon, with an average value of perhaps ten dollars each. The Web is even better for giving books away, gratis, to the whole world, to anyone who can be prevailed on to read them. You just convert everything into Acrobat or HTML, put it up on your website, create indexes, and you are in business. The Web tends to get into difficulties when you try to use it for things involving serious amounts of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alternatives(), 26 Oct 2013 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re:
Someone (or multiple someones) need to go to jail over this whole thing,

ASCII and ye shall RX.

The path to jail will be via the removal of the copyright notice and that is due to fraud. The fraud would be getting paid for that Open Source code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 12:36pm

This is a typical software development project failure from management to architecture. Millions have been wasted unfortunately but this project could be used as another case of how to fail to deliver the right thing in time and budget.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolf, 1 Oct 2014 @ 2:20am

Guess where the job was actually done
Has anyone mentioned that this lucrative government program has been outsourced since 2007 to Kiev, Ukraine? The incompetent management simply hired the low quality labor there to do the job and situation quickly went out of control. Now there is a debate on what to do with a dead horse))
[ link to this | view in thread ]