From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A morals question?
Message-ID: <1991May23.015604.6260@netcom.COM>
Date: 23 May 91 01:56:04 GMT
References: <"910520033903.71660.412.CHE77-1"@CompuServe.COM>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>If the hypothetical contractor got a waiver to do the development work
>in C and not Ada, even though there is a validated compiler available, 
>and the waiver was gotten on honest but not totally honest terms then
>what can I do.

"honest but not totally honest" is an oxymoron. Either it was a lie
or it wasn't.

>The evidence for the hypothetical waiver was honest and correct but
>ever so slightly skewed. What are the repercussions possible to the
>company, i.e. could the government review the waiver and changed its
>mind if the original evidence had a minor (or major) defect? 

Well, let's see. There's fraud. There's violation of the Ada mandate
(which is now not just policy, but also the law [use C, go to prison ;-)]).
There's the possibility of sanctions. There's all KINDS of stuff that
could befall this hypothetical company.

>Is there a government office where the hypothetical company could be
>reported to for examination of violation of the Ada mandate?

The AJPO would probably be interested. There's also the folks that grant
the waivers in the first place. There's the GAO.

>Only a hypothetical case as there is no DoD contractor that I know of
>that would even for one minute think of trying to avoid the Ada mandate
>by getting a waiver for anything other than a very valid reason.

Of course not. Perish the thought.

>How does a person not get fired after making a claim against such a
>hypothetical company doing such a hypothetical thing?

By filing all such complaints anonymously. Also, if you TRUST the
State to do the right thing, there is supposedly a Whistleblower's
protection act of some sort that not only provides immunity from
firing, but provides rewards to the whistleblower and penalties to
the company. There's even an 800 number, I believe. On the other
hand, if it were me I'd forgo the reward and file anonymously,
unless I already had another job lined up.
-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *