The main problem with the original healthcare.gov was that it was built by contractors under the old contracting model of "fill as many seats with bodies as you can, win the contract, and charge by the hour". That business model creates a perverse economic incentive that doesn't leave a lot of room for creativity, and certainly doesn't do anything to create trust between the federal agency that requires software and the team that ends up building it. I would also say that the hiring bar for contractors, compared to 18F, the USDS, etc, is, frankly, pitiful.
> "fill as many seats with bodies as you can, win the contract, and charge by the hour"
THIS MAN knows what he's talking about. I wish more people would be aware of this.
What's even more perverse? When contracts are awarded based on the above while factoring in "diversity points" - different minorities count for different numbers of points. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out what perversity follows.
Oh, you mean the preference for women, minorities, and veterans? Yeah, that's an interesting issue. It's great in theory, but in practice ends with quite a bit of additional bench stuffing to increase preference. And then to start a company and compete for contracts, even if you're a rockstar engineer who just happens to be white and a man, good luck competing against an 8A. It's hard to complain, because I see the value, but at the same time, UGH.
Quite honestly, it creates a class of "tokens". They nominally have jobs, but their real job (for the sake of the company being awarded the contract) is to simply be a token. Certain minorities count for more than others.
