backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by NicodemusMM.. on Jan 14 at 10:37 PM

CGI Federal's contract expires February 28, and will not be renewed

The U.S. government's former contractor responsible for HealthCare.gov got the boot after the website proved to be faulty several times after launch, and now a new contractor is stepping in to clean up the mess. 

According to a new report from Reuters, Accenture is the new contractor in charge of HealthCare.gov. The one-year contract is worth $45 million USD for the project's initial phase, with a total value of $90 million by the time it expires.

"Accenture will bring deep healthcare industry insight as well as proven experience building large-scale, public-facing websites to continue improving HealthCare.gov," said David Moskovitz, chief executive of Accenture Federal Services.

HealthCare.gov's first contractor, CGI Federal -- which launched the site back in October -- has carried much of the blame for the health insurance website's troubles.

For weeks after the initial launch, the site experienced slow speeds and loading messages preventing users from shopping the health insurance marketplace.   

CGI Federal blamed another contractor's software and ultimately the federal government on October 23 for the website's terrible performance. 


[SOURCE: wbir.com]

CGI Federal's government contract for HealthCare.gov will expire February 28, 2014, and the contractor said it will not be renewed. 

Back in November, Republican investigators with the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation of the HealthCare.gov's troubles, and found emails from the project manager back in July 2013 that warned of potential issues that could arise. HealthCare.gov project manager Henry Chao sent an email out about the site's main contractor, CGI Federal, on July 16 saying that he "needs to feel more confident they are not going to crash the plane at take-off."

Staff shortages, problems with contractors and software issues were among the issues discussed prior to HealthCare.gov's launch. 

Microsoft even offered its help with HealthCare.gov's technical issues. The House Oversight Committee sent letters to others as well, such as Kayak and Verizon, looking for help.

President Barack Obama met with tech leaders in December to talk about HealthCare.gov's problems, and the government ended up pulling former Microsoft Office executive Kurt DelBene in to help out. 

Obama has called the website glitches "unacceptable." 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Does Matter
By Arsynic on 1/13/2014 11:35:06 AM , Rating: 0
Michelle Obama's friend at CGI Federal already got her pay day.

The Bush administration may have been in Haliburton's pocket, but at least Haliburton was a competent company that knew what the fuck it was doing.

Why didn't they go with Accenture from the start?




RE: Does Matter
By ipay on 1/13/2014 11:47:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
at least Haliburton was a competent company


Hahaha! Competent as in does a good job? Or competent as in competently makes a few people rich while uses it's influence to skirt serious responsibilities when a bad job is done? Aside from anything else, perhaps you recall then Deepwater Horizon?


RE: Does Matter
By ClownPuncher on 1/13/2014 12:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
What does the Deepwater Horizon have to do with Halliburton? It was manufactured by South Korea, owned by the Swiss, and leased to the British.


RE: Does Matter
By datdamonfoo on 1/13/2014 12:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Does Matter
By ClownPuncher on 1/13/2014 2:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
Shady. Yet the accident and spill responsibility still lies firmly at the feet of BP.


RE: Does Matter
By Reclaimer77 on 1/13/2014 12:42:03 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know why Halliburton was really awarded so many contracts? Most of the time they were the only firm with the expertise and ability to do the job.

Does that sound incompetent to you?


RE: Does Matter
By ven1ger on 1/13/2014 3:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously?

Halliburton is listed as an oilfield services company. There is a list of about 40-50 (didn't bother to count) other oilfield services companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oilfield_serv...

Seeing as that Halliburton was given the majority of the work if not all, because I don't think any of the jobs went out to bid, especially since Cheney was in Halliburton's pocket and he made sure that Halliburton got the prime contracts. How do you know that none of the other companies couldn't have done a better job?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton:

"In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.[44]"


RE: Does Matter
By Reclaimer77 on 1/13/2014 3:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes the Cheeny/Bush Halliburton tin foil viewpoint.

Don't you guys get tired of being stupid and having all your opinions spoonfed to you?

Instead of wiki links, why don't you look up what actual investigators found who looked into the Halliburton/Bush connection?

And saying there were other service companies is like saying the mom and pop PC shop in your town can leverage as much logistics and expertise as IBM. They both work on computers right?


RE: Does Matter
By ven1ger on 1/13/2014 4:07:32 PM , Rating: 3
Please post the links to what you base your wisdom from. I did a google search and came up with those links. If you're unwilling to point me to the links then stop with your ad-hominem attacks.


RE: Does Matter
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2014 7:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
Because they were the only US contractor that had the experience and ability to do the work. There was a French based contractor who complained about not getting to bid. Did you want to give the work to them?


RE: Does Matter
By ven1ger on 1/14/2014 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any sort of evidence that Halliburton were the only US contractor that had the experience and ability, otherwise I could easily say that there were many US companies that were capable of doing the job but were not even offered to bid on it. If only Halliburton was allowed to bid on the project, how do you know that only Halliburton had the expertise? Why even pretend to put it out to bid if only Halliburton was allowed to bid? Probably just for the pretense that procurement rules were being followed.

I thought the war in Iraq was a coalition led operation? So, tell me why again a French (ally) company isn't able to bid on a job that is supposed to be a coalition operation? Do you mean to tell me that only US companies were supposed to be able to do work for a coalition run operation?


RE: Does Matter
By Arsynic on 1/13/2014 3:34:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Competent as in does a good job?


Competent as in actually knowing what they're doing in their business domain. The healthcare website, in contrast, has been a clusterfuck of ineptitude from the beginning.

Government is corrupt and will continue to be corrupt when it comes to contractors. But in Obama's case, he throws money at people who don't know what the fuck they're doing. See Solyndra as another example.


RE: Does Matter
By KCjoker on 1/13/2014 6:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
The jobs Haliburton performed look simply fantastic compared to these idiots paid millions to create a website. So as usual the republicans dealings are bad but democrats are insanely worse. While I'm not at all happy with republicans I'll continue choosing them sense their the lesser of two evils.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki