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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2def9aa85afa5d22 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-08 05:53:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BEA803A.F0E79A03@earthlink.net> From: "Marc A. Criley" Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Joint Strike Fighter References: <3BDCE159.39F6D422@adaworks.com> <11bf7180.0110290311.4d8d6f04@posting.google.com> <3BDF9C6A.C25520C5@adaworks.com> <3BE023AB.8F235EF5@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9rp8mo$6d8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9rrmvl$98d$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BE4221B.34589071@adaworks.com> <3BE43CDC.F6B1EE30@acm.org> <3BE813E4.C4797DDE@reges.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:53:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.178.185.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1005227636 63.178.185.167 (Thu, 08 Nov 2001 05:53:56 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 05:53:56 PST X-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 05:49:47 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16058 Date: 2001-11-08T13:53:56+00:00 List-Id: Rex Reges wrote: > > For military contracts, the more common scenario is > that the project is replanned due to shifting politics > or global events. Once the contract is won, then you > sock the Government for big bucks to accomadate constantly > shifting requirements, changing project funding profiles, > etc. It's all cost plus. I hardly consider it "socking the Government" to charge them for the time and resources required to accommodate their changing requirements. If the customer asked for a price to provide capability X, and after accepting that bid change their requirements to X' + Y, and there's a cost increase involved--well, who else is supposed to pay for it? And if they initially order 1000 widgets in the first year's production run, then stretch that out to 250 widgets across four years, of course there's going to be a per-widget cost increase. Again, is the manufacturer supposed to just eat that difference, because their customer (and Congress) have a fixation on short-term costs? > > In the worst-case scenario, a project may come to an > end and the Government's audit (FCA/PCA) discoveres that > a bunch of requirements haven't been met and a bunch > of work hasn't been completed. The big shots in the > Pentagon aren't going to take a fall, so they accept > things as delivered. When I worked for the Government, > I would have been happy to get 50% of what the contract > asked for! If it's not until the end of the program that the government discovers there are significant unfulfilled requirements, then the government's contract manager(s) should be canned. This is incompetence nearly on the level of malfeasance. Even if the contractor insists "trust us, we'll meet the requirements and you don't need all that expensive oversight", the contract manager would be a fool to just say, "Yup, okay!" Good, proven contractors may have earned the priviledge of "light" oversight, but never none! In almost 20 years of software development, I've never been involved with a project that would blithely fail to meet the project's requirements and be indifferent to such an occurrence. From projects of a few millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, when there were cost and requirements problems, we made sure the customer knew about it and jointly hammered out a new plan. Sometimes requirements were dropped or modified, sometimes the company ate the difference, and yes, sometimes the government expended more funds. Marc A. Criley Senior Staff Engineer Quadrus Corporation www.quadruscorp.com