Re: Open comment to Ted Holden

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.e du!convex!spray@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Rob Spray)]

In <1992Apr9.155334.20536@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> nedervol@schaefer.math.wisc.e
du (Eric Nedervold) writes:

>Does this argument extend to hardware too?  Like $500 toilet seats?

I believe that most of these popular DoD-bashing anecdotes are driven
by:

a) Poor or overlooked requirements specifications that cause things
   like expensive coffee pots because all equipment on a certain
   aircraft has some blanket requirement that it be radiation-hardened
   or will continue to operate if the aircraft is inverted!

b) The result of cost-recovery by contractors driven by the current
   government procurement practises that almost preclude accurately
   costed proposals from winning contracts.

c) Blanket requirements for specifications and documentation, that,
   for example, drive up the procured cost of what the "general
   public" could buy commercially.

I think it is specious to introduce hot button phrases like
"$500 toilet seats" into some people's attempts at a rational
discussion on software technology transfer.

--Rob   spray@convex.com

Flaming for myself.