back to article US Social Security 'wasted $300 million on an IT BOONDOGGLE'

Members of the US Congress are demanding answers from the Social Security Administration (SSA) over an ongoing IT project that has racked up a $288m bill without deploying a field-ready product. A trio of representatives from the House Oversight Committee said in a letter to the SSA that they had "serious problems" with the …

  1. John P

    It would appear it is not just the UK government who are completely useless at IT projects.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Amateurs

      The US took 6years to waste $300M on a complex social security IT projects. Given the same timeframe the UK managed to wast 10x that on NHS IT. They blew £347M on a system to log 300K asylum seekers in a few months.

      1. Bronek Kozicki
        Joke

        Re: Amateurs

        I imagine this dialog:

        Obama: duh

        Cameron: amateurs ...

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Amateurs

        In fairness to the NHS, their system is 10x more complicated than SSA's. SSA is essentially: was there someone who at some point in time contributed money to SS. If yes, process claim, if no, reject. And since that person is either you directly or a parent or guardian, confirming the contribution is relatively straight forward. After that, consult the contribution table, consult the payout percentage, and you're done. (With the built-in faulty fraud detectors of course.) The only thing making it complicated is the shear size of the thing.

        NHS on the other hand has all sorts of other information to track. Granted they gain some on the shear size of the thing, but those exponentials on the complexity are killer.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Amateurs

          the shear size of the thing

          Good points, but what kind of shearing are we talking here? Wind? Sheep?

        2. Joe Gurman

          Re: Amateurs

          The US SSA benefits are a bit more complex than that; there are also survivor benefits for spouses and children under a certain age, as well as disability protections. That said, it's clear that US as well as UK government agencies are generally useless at managing large IT projects, for the reason stated in other comments that they don't have the right in-house expertise to define requirements, oversee the procurement process, and then manage the development, testing, and deployment. In the US, at least, they are generally debarred from the procurement process, so one can experience the best of US politics in action: during the previous administration, a presidential appointee managing one such procurement was from Texas, and he insured that whoever won the work would also be based in the great state of Texas. Such is payback. Needless to say, the vendor fell flat on its face.

    2. Stevie

      not just the UK government who are completely useless at IT

      You will note that there is a big bux vendor involved, and that that vendor used to make expensive aeroplanes for the government, but now doesn't so much. Keep that in mind for a bit.

      I work at the sharp end of Govt IT these days and I can state unequivocally that were the taxpayer to shut up demanding that we bid out every bloody project to grubbing low-bid vendors they might actually get value for money instead of the atrocious waste they actually fund. Government is a not-for-profit organization when working properly. No private vendor is, especially a former aerospace giant. You do the math.

      One vendor I had the misfortune to be interacting with bills by the page of documentation. That's how they word their contracts - documentation is proof of work done. Their project documents are a thing to fear, and by some accounts are responsible for much of the deforestation of Latin America. I never knew IT involved so many adjectives and adverbs.

      And you never get one vendor rep, they only come in three- and six- packs, depending on who else will be at the meetings. Of course, there is *always* one that must attend by phone too.

      Makes me pine for the old days, in the manufacturing industry in the UK. Actually, I only remember cost overruns and abandoned projects as the norm then too, and I only worked in the private sector.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: not just the UK government who are completely useless at IT

        You're spot on. Agencies no longer having their own IT experts in house is, I believe, a big part of the problem. The bureaucrats that get the agency IT oversight leads can't make heads or tales of the 'documentation' (which I also agree is a stupid thing to call a contract).

        I would prefer full on IT departments in every agency and department, but barring that there should be at least a few top notch people at each agency that not only understand contract development, but also the technical sides of IT and the business side. I realize that's an expensive proposition, but I can guarantee the costs of that staff would be less than the GAO report on the estimated expenses of the program.

        But I like to keep things positive and look at the advantages of a bunch of idiots in government. We once made a bunch of very specialized variable torque fastener assemblies for a government agency. We weren't told what the ultimate application was (which is fairly normal), but I knew from the moment I saw the drawings the thing wouldn't work. I tried to tell them, even wrote an official Don Jefe 'You're Doing It Wrong' letter to the head of the agency who I knew personally. 'Just make it to spec they said. The firm that designed it was 7000x (est) cheaper than you and specifically designed it to prevent the problem you're talking about'.

        Five months and an $800k check later, they are back because the thing didn't work. They wanted us to design the new assembly, but get credit for the initial batch. 'Fuck you' I said and they paid full price. I realize that money was taxpayer dollars, but I really did try to stop it from happening. If they aren't going to have people on staff capable of understanding what they're buying then fuck 'em, I can't help that and that $800k went into the company 'Best Idea of the Year' pool. Everybody wins! (Except the taxpayer).

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Name on big government IT project that ever came close to budget and time

    There seems to be no penalty for running over budget, so of course all the vendors do, they make more money that way. Write the contracts so they eat the cost overruns and get no pay if a system working to spec isn't delivered on time and the bids will be higher but the taxpayers won't get socked paying more or paying for something that doesn't work.

    Let them take a share of the savings if they come in under budget in addition to preference in future contracts and they'll have incentive to reduce costs.

    No private business would accept a contract written the way the government contracts are, no wonder so many are lined up at the trough ready to take advantage of Uncle Sam. With liberal application of campaign bribes donations the companies can insure that while Congress whines about it, they never do anything that might stop the practice, especially for defense contracting.

    1. Preston Munchensonton
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Name on big government IT project that ever came close to budget and time

      It sounds really nice to wish for politicians and unelected administrators to act wisely with the money they take from taxpayers. However, that's not reality at all, especially in the case of these bureaucrats that keep their jobs regardless of who may be in office.

      The other point to keep in mind is that Congress typically is powerless to do anything about it, since the actual laws in the US are not produced by Congress, but by bureaucrats within the Executive branch (under direction of some vague bill like the Clean Air Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Congress funds their program, but the administration chooses how to spend it in the vast majority of cases.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: There seems to be no penalty for running over budget

      On really huge projects there isn't, but for reasons outside of the usual accusations of graft and corruption. My roommate does R&D work for a branch of government. There are basically two vendors in the US who do the work for which they contract. So if you try to inflict the sorts of financial penalties you'd get in a broad market, you wind up with the unintended consequence of handing the other guy a monopoly.

      Which isn't to say there isn't a hell of a lot of back scratching and other corruption in the system, just that even if you could eliminate the corruption you'd still have a problem because there are only a small number of companies that can play on the really BIG projects.

      On little ones, like the contract on which I work, they'll cut us off in a heart-beat if we don't perform. Because there are lots of other vendors out there doing the same thing and we're easily replaced.

      1. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Re: There seems to be no penalty for running over budget

        Additionally, the people writing and approving the contracts are often not those actually involved in them. When it comes to IT, this is especially telling as they are often completely unaware of what the actual requirements of a project should be and are thus unequipped to make a reasonable determination on any bids submitted.

        In many cases, while the contract is supposed to be written and reviewed by a panel, they often all report to the same person which essentially grants that person all the decision-making power. The advise of the panel may be ignored or, if the manager in question is more skillful, steered to the desired outcome.

        There is so much waste built into the way our government runs. It is no surprise, though, given how much money is at stake. While most rules put into place around this process were made to minimize government expenditures, money will find a way to overcome.

  3. Daniel von Asmuth
    Black Helicopters

    From the people who brought you the C-130 Hercules

    A system to target the unemployed with heat-seaking missiles??

  4. Someone Else Silver badge
    FAIL

    Well, Well, Well...

    Committee members Darrell Issa (R-CA) James Lankford (R-OK) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) [...]

    Now there's a rogues gallery for you...led by a convicted car thief.

    Yelling and screaming and jumping up and down about a failed IT project that cost some $300M over the period of 6 years is BAAAAddd, because these yutzes want to see SS fail. But these same fools have no problem approving spending 10 times that per week on a failed war in a place that we have no business playing in.

    Hypocrite much, Darryl?

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Well, Well, Well...

      Meh. Car theft isn't a big deal. Especially compared to deliberately exposing classified projects to gain political leverage.

  5. nematoad
    Unhappy

    No contest

    Only $300 million wasted? Pah! Rank amateurs.

    See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464002

    Now that's how to waste public money.

    Good to see that the UK can still beat the US at something.

    1. Preston Munchensonton
      Black Helicopters

      Re: No contest

      Mate, you're comparing apples to oranges. Here's a $1.4T blunder to chew on...

      http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

      And those are conservative numbers from the US government's CBO accounting arm. You can imagine how bad reality will be.

      But as a man, at least I don't have to pay for contraceptives or materity care anymore. /sarcasm

      1. asdf

        Re: No contest

        I call your $1.4T blunder (the real blunder is how much money we waste on Medicare for old people who often have plenty of their own money and take out 3 dollars for ever 1 they paid in during their lifetime) and raise you a $2T (over lifetime) blunder called the F35. The aircraft that if it ever sees combat will embarrass the operating nation mightily.

  6. Mark 85

    Department of the Obvious....

    Lockheed-Martin. Someone is probably "friends" with someone in procurement more than likely. Seems like this should have been done by a dedicated IT company and not a jack-of-all trades government fund sucker.

    1. Old Handle

      Re: Department of the Obvious....

      Didn't they also handle UK's last census? Or was it some other merchant of death I'm thinking of?

    2. Someone Else Silver badge
      Alert

      @Mark 85 --Re: Department of the Obvious....

      I read the last part of your post as "[...] and not a jackass-of-all-trades government fund sucker."

      Upon further review, I think I may have been right all along.

    3. Dylan Fahey

      Re: Department of the Obvious....

      And I can guarantee that NONE of the LM folks working on the project are actually LM employees. They are sub-contractors for LM. Everyone is at the 'grain shoot' getting their share. Shit product, no one cares, they got their monies and are gone.

  7. TkH11

    methodology

    Sounds like a waterfall development approach has been used.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: methodology

      As in - 'pissing it up against a wall' type "waterfall" model ?

  8. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
    FAIL

    Stack Overflow

    An idiot who doesn't know how IT works will subcontract to an idiot who doesn't know how IT works. It's infinite recursion ending only at the moment when all resources are exhausted. The examination of what went wrong will follow the same path to its full extent.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stack Overflow

      "An idiot who doesn't know how IT works will subcontract to an idiot who doesn't know how IT works."

      It was Mark Twain who described a fictional island where everyone paid someone else to do their washing. They in turn passed it on to someone else - and so on. The result being that there was nobody actually doing the washing.

      Here's Dilbert's updating of that situation - a page full that all hit the mark.

      http://search.dilbert.com/search?p=Q&srid=S3-USCDR02&lbc=dilbert&ts=custom&w=Outsourcing&uid=382502350&method=and&isort=date&view=list&filter=type%3acomic&srt=18

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google, AWS, Facebook

    Maybe governments should look to Google, AWS, Facebook to implement large projects effectively. These companies don't appear to have much trouble with their own large projects. I'll bet they could and I'll bet they wouldn't have any difficulty ensuring that all documents would be ODF, as per England's new requirement.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Google, AWS, Facebook

      These companies don't appear to have much trouble with their own large projects.

      Of course they don't, because they're not playing with the house's money. When you have some skin in the game, you tend to pay more attention to the details.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Google, AWS, Facebook

      You are having a laugh obviously.

      Try replacing the name of the project with "Surface" for example, then substitute the other details as required, adjust the figures accordingly, replace UK with Microsoft and see how one of your poster boys fuck up a perceived strategic direction.

      OK you didn't mention MS but the rest have similar screw ups in the bag. G+ anyone?

  10. channel extended
    Facepalm

    Sample Conversatio.

    Gov Official: "We need a new fetibibble software system!"

    Political Donor: "I'll call my brother-in-law."

    Gov Off: "How much does he know about software?"

    Pol Don: "Nothing. But he does know the billing system."

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why reinvent the wheel

    Why reinvent the wheel when similar solution are already available from companies such as Google or Amazon?

  12. chris lively

    Having worked with many government and IT entities, the break down here is obvious:

    1. Large company uses time and materials method for project billing.

    2. Large government entity with mass of people each of whom have near equal say in project requirements that are often contradictory and certainly changing as they think of new things.

    3. Profit until someone gets mad.

    You need competent leadership when dealing with time and materials projects; preferably the person holding the purse strings will do nicely. The IT company will certainly not stop you from changing your mind a dozen times for the color scheme alone. Happily charging you for every little thing. So, it's best to know exactly what you want before you engage.

    Now if the contract is on a fixed bid, it is in the IT company's interest to freeze the requirements they bid on and say no to all the changes. For these projects you want to have clear timeframes for delivery which include penalties for being late and bonuses for completing early.

    Honestly, I have no idea why anyone agrees to start projects that are in that price range. As failure is the most likely outcome. If you want to be successful, then you make a road map of where you want to be and lay down the foundation for getting there: one piece at a time. Where each piece is bid on (fixed), and achievable within 6 to 9 months. Any project that takes longer than that is just too much.

    1. ItsNotMe
      Pint

      Sorry chris...I'm a bit confused.

      You state "Having worked with many government and IT entities..." yet you make a perfectly logical statement like " If you want to be successful, then you make a road map of where you want to be and lay down the foundation for getting there: one piece at a time. Where each piece is bid on (fixed), and achievable within 6 to 9 months. Any project that takes longer than that is just too much.

      Don't you realize that there is absolutely no logic in government? If there were, everything would go smoothly.

      Politicians would put the country's needs ahead of their own personal agendas...bills would get passed...government spending would be carefully monitored...government appointments would precede in a timely manner through Congress...there would be no need for Lobbyists...and everyone would be happy with...and have implicit trust in...their elected officials.

      Not sure if there is any country on the planet like that.

      That is a world which only exists in one's mind...not one that will ever exist in reality.

      Just kidding mate. Have a cold one...but reconsider your comments. ;-)

  13. chris lively

    Okay, I read the document. Just wow. They had an example of something that should be a quick fix: "user should be able to hit the ENTER key to activate the "submit" button function." Seriously? That isn't a given? That doesn't bode well for how the rest of the system works.

    Also, what's up with the blacked out pages? What could be more damning of the SSA's handling of the project that it needs to be hidden from public view?

    I have to say that the auditor did a great job though. Looks pretty thorough. Page 20 summed up my previous comment here nicely.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      They had an example of something that should be a quick fix: "user should be able to hit the ENTER key to activate the "submit" button function." Seriously? That isn't a given?

      I'd've thought that specific example would be covered by Section 508,1 and so automatically required for a US Federal government project. So while perhaps not a "given" (I've seen plenty of worse UI blunders in commercial software), it ought to have been covered by a blanket "must meet S.508 requirements".

      1And a quick glance at the WebAIM S.508 guidelines suggests I am right; form submission must be possible through assistive technologies, and that includes keyboard navigation.

  14. Vincent Manis

    In my experience, government IT projects often don't come in on time/under budget, for several reasons. 1) Requirements creep, often triggered by political considerations (and often from the same sources as later outrage about increasing costs); 2) lack of coherent oversight by the client (instead of having a small review committee with both technical and other members, approvals are often distributed among a large, diffuse, and ever-changing group of individuals); 3) significant amounts of out-of-band communication between contractor and client, often necessitated by the first two factors, and resulting in a loss of institutional memory (`where did that requirement come from'); 4) poor life-cycle models, veering towards waterfalls, and away from iterative/agile practices (and I am not carrying the agile banner here, just pointing out that waterfall development often produces gargantuan monsters that don't satisfy client needs); 5) lack of end-user involvement (e.g., a senior program manager who thinks he can speak for clerical users of the system); 6) lack of clearly identifiable milestones that relate to the actual project (e.g., `the Frobozz infrastructure is complete', rather than `the system can correctly perform transactions X, Y, and Z'); 7) emphasis on delivering milestone products, rather than ensuring the products meet specified reliability and performance requirements; and 8) lack of proper audit procedures (e.g., looking at numbers of closed and unclosed bugs in the bug database). I could go on and on.

    Of course, many private-sector projects go south in exactly the same ways. But government IT projects seem particularly susceptable to these dangers. As someone who has taught software engineering practices to industrial practitioners, it disturbs me greatly how easy it is for large organizations to ignore their own history, and make the same mistakes over and over again.

  15. Lamb0
    Facepalm

    Business vs. Government translation:

    "The audit report [PDF] includes a number of recommendations, such as management consolidation..."

    Business: Fire some employees and reduce middle management.

    Government: Hire more employees and add another layer of management.

    1. Denarius
      Unhappy

      Re: Business vs. Government translation:

      Fire public serpents ? Often those most needed are fired, especially the technically skilled ones with a track record. The PHBs get a bonus and pay rise and a bunch of freshly minted graduates infected by the latest fad are hired by oursourcerer-de-juer to "do project". Still Qld Health beat USSA Social Insecurity with their $B1 fail, showing Oz fails are world class.

      Agree with other commentards that government military purchases are often stuffed up by interference from pollies, sometimes for ego, sometimes for who knows reasons. The technical assessments are over-ridden. This means the public servants cannot do their job or are made irrelevant. IMHO, ministers and PHBs in charge of departments need to be de-protected so that a major FAIL hits their superannuation, jobs and private finances It might encourage accessible recording of the reasons for decisions. And the term "commercial in confidence" be made an automatic disqualification from tenders being accepted, except for price until contract awarded. Fixed price contracts have much to recommend them. Encourages due diligence on part of tenderer. Now how do we get candidates with basic tendering skills elected ? Sisyphus, meet spin doctors ?

  16. Eddy Ito

    Shocking!

    Bureaucrats and politicians screwing up a project they know absolutely fuck all of how it should work. I suppose you should expect as much on an IT project from a group of social science and foreign affairs majors. Funny nobody every questioned the ability of soldiers and lawyers to make up a budget but that's government for you.

  17. Down not across

    Withholding information

    "We find these allegations deeply disturbing, and if true, they suggest that your agency is attempting to mislead or withhold information from the Congress and the American public," the committee trio wrote.

    Erm, isn't that what three letter agencies (are supposed to) do ?

    1. Peter Simpson 1
      Happy

      Re: Withholding information

      Erm, isn't that what three letter agencies (are supposed to) do ?

      You're probably confusing NSA with SSA

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Withholding information

      Not Social Security, you have that confused with the OTHER three letter agencies starting with the IRS (and the president).

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    How government IT projects are supposed to work?

    "Members of the US Congress are demanding answers from the Social Security Administration (SSA) over an ongoing IT project that has racked up a $288m bill without deploying a field-ready product."

    Isn't this precisely how government IT projects are supposed to work, spend as much revenue as possible regardless of the end results. After all it's only tax payers money ..

  19. Christian Berger

    Happens regularly in industry

    However in industry nobody outside notices, except when the company goes bust because of it.

    It's just customers money anyhow, so why should they care?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like