Gov't contracting is, in economic terms, a rent-seeking business. The best and brightest in a given contracting firm are dedicated to pursuing new work. I work for a contractor, and my fun IT projects are all proof of concept items. Stellar execution simply isn't rewarded. The gov't puts idiots in charge of things: not idiots in the sense that they aren't smart, but idiots in the sense that they have no expertise in anything. They are hired for paper qualifications (ever heard of a Project Management Professional cert? It's what they hire, and its useless), and the bright/motivated ones move on to interesting work, perhaps in other parts of the gov't, or the private sector. I built a great tool, using all open source technology for the gov't once. I built it in 3 weeks (it is now officially gov't owned software), and it replaced an $80K piece of software (commercial off the shelf) that was inadequate for the task. My reward was complaints that the security people weren't familiar with Postgres, and an immediate request to migrate to Oracle. There was no functional reason for this, but I complied after the gov't shelled out huge sums of money for Oracle license. Why? Because paper pushing idiots in the gov't are in charge of IT security, and their credentials for the job are based entirely on passing certification tests. Their entire incentivization at their job is to minimize their own workload, rather than maximize the happiness of their gov't customers.
Do you think anybody who could even guage whether proper testing was being performed or not was in charge of this project from the gov't level? Of course not. If they had, it would have been properly tested.
I'm mad as hell about this because I want the ACA to succeed. I don't think its ideal, but its vastly better than the existing system of hospitals as clinics for the uninsured hordes.
The Federal gov't has an awful hiring process, and until it is fixed, you are lucky to encounter competent and driven individuals within it. You are foolish to expect it.
I couldn't agree more. You only get one chance to make a first impression and they blew it. (sigh)
I mean, let's start admitting that it's _not_ easy to make a site that can handle that level of traffic. It's do-able, but it's not easy.
Once they have it handling the proper traffic, only _then_ are they going to start finding out about all the bugs that are actually logic related instead of load/traffic related. Which I'm sure there are plenty of, because all software has bugs, and because the QA for those (including integration with IRS system or whatever?) isn't trivial either, and I'm sure they didn't do any better with it then they did with preparing for the load.
Also, it would have really helped to have someone - likely not a developer - to bridge the gap and ask the customer "do you really need people to set up user access before viewing plans or you just want that? why?" and then turn to the developer and say "ok, what does that mean technically? what the pros and cons?"
Creating a website that can handle, well, nearly the entire country, out of the gate, is not trivial. (Facebook etc got to scale up to that level, they didn't need to do it out of the gate). But it also can be done.
How? Well, you hire real experts in doing this sort of thing. And you give them enough calendar time, and enough billable hours, to do it right. And you don't give them your own 'business requirements' which contradict their expertise on what's neccesary to make it work.
Obviously the government did not do one or more of those things, right?
(I will confess that my opinion is not high of the likely expertise level of typical IT government contracting firms.).