(no title)
hy3lxs | 11 years ago
Cannot speak directly to experience of original developers, but I could see moving target as being an issue.
Would love to see our code open sourced someday and be useful to others, especially state exchanges, but that is a long-term goal. Currently we are laser-focused on getting everything ready to ship by next open enrollment.
Alupis|11 years ago
I mean, the original site was awarded to CGI Inc without any biding process... and they aren't even a US company. Why did we not have US professionals/companies build this thing the first go-round?
I could have imagined a High-Tech All-Stars sort of thing... each major US tech company sends 1 or 2 representatives to collaborate and work together to build this new long-lasting piece of national infrastructure.
lekanwang|11 years ago
I believe CGI actually got this contract via an IDIQ, which is an "indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity" contract, allowing HHS to add additional "tasks" to the IDIQ contract as long as its within certain bounds set by the contract, and if it stays within their GSA fee schedule. IDIQs started becoming popular in the 90s as a more expedient way to contract rather than the months-long or even years-long process of a standard competitive bidding process. However, it only really solved the procurement woes for incumbents. I couldn't find the original CGI-Federal contract, but here's at least their press release: http://www.cgi.com/en/CGI-selected-build-US-wide-competitive...
Also, here's Accenture RFP award as the prime for fixing up the site for the next enrollment cycle. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&i...