Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

reuters.com

531–540 of 684 posts

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#531
post #21

Kinda amusing that the general sentiment so far, in a forum filled with technology expertise, is that there is certainly waste in these budgets. But, when discussing the overall trend of cutting programs in other fields where the majority doesn't have that expertise, the conclusion is the opposite.

The internet comment section “pick a side and deride the other” doesn’t work on these situations. Two things can be bad at once. The IT consulting can be too expensive. Cutting it all at once with no other plan can have disastrous consequences. Rash moves like this are things politicians and corporate ladder climbers alike love to do, but then they run far away from the consequences. They know they can convince enoug…

> This very well could become more expensive to cancel abruptly when you consider the second and third order effects.

That's the goal. The whole conservative ideology for the past 40 years has been to make the government inefficient so it can complain about government inefficiencies.

What we are seeing is the end game of this idea - turn the government itself into an gigantic inefficient corporation designed to siphon as much money as possible from people.

In this specific situation, these expensive contractors will be replace with even more expensive "AI contractors" that work for companies founded by the Global Elite Tech Bros. So more money spent on on less outcomes. Destroying the system first ensures that there's no direct performance comparisons that can be made between the old expensive, but functional system and the new even more expensive, disfunctional one they created.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can't actually pay enough to hire senior developers directly I had the impression that it was also easier to fire contractors. (Well, not to renew their contract.) If a developer who works directly for the government is underperforming, their boss has to jump through many, many hoops to fire them.

This is close to what I wrote myself, but the problem here isn't being able to fire people because they underperformed. The problem is what to do about temporary jobs that finish. They performed exactly as expected, maybe even exceeded expectations, but when the work is finished, you still need to get rid of the position, and they can't do that with permanent civil servants.

We need to get rid of this insane idea that a job exists for any reason other than the value your work provides to the organization.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I promise you never want that.

Matt Cutts went from Google to the US Digital Service and did some amazing work. Maybe he’s an outlier, but I don’t think so. There are a lot of supremely talented people willing to take a massive pay cut to do good, meaningful work.

Three things:

1. Exactly zero companies, much less startups, are like the US Government.

2. He had 2 years at the NSA prior to his Google run.

3. I'm pretty sure he's one of the highest profile google engineers, you're not getting that for $500k.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this is the case, “process” is immensely more important in government and military than in companies because government has the authority, the prerogative even, to use violence, ruin lives, and kill people. The onerous processes are in place to protect civilians. When you shoot from the hip at a tech company, the bad outcome is that a lot of money gets wasted and people lose their jobs. When the federal gover…

Plus, many of the laws government has to follow are exactly about the process by which things are done. That is what helps ensure it is fair, effective, transparent, etc.

Fair and transparent are arguable. I have never met someone who deals with the government on a regular basis that has ever described it as effective, and at this point I am willing to sacrifice some fairness and transparency for effectiveness.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you seen the documentary Inside Job covering the 2008 financial crisis? "Burning it all down and starting over" is a very immature and myopic perspective and cannot be taken seriously as a workable solution. The solution is to implement regulation that, very broadly here, enacts mechanisms to make private gain for public loss something incredibly difficult to do. There need to be checks against people in posi…

> cannot be taken seriously as a workable solution ... in your opinion. More regulation will just lead to more and more ineffectual bureaucracy. "More regulation" as an answer is why nothing gets built in California. "More regulation" is why the Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia took 20 years to permit and complete, whereas the same can be done in under 5 years in China. "More regulation" is why it takes 10 years and $3 billi…

It would help further a good-faith discussion if you were first more precise in defining what you mean. Please be specific with your premise and what you would do to fix the flaws you see.

Maybe start with the part where you say "science and medicine are stagnant", therefore "we should burn it all down and start over". This is how misinterpretations and assumptions start and does not benefit mutual intellectual understanding.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#538
post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll join you in getting downvoted for absolutely no reason. It's a shitty thing they're doing, but your observation is correct. My job working on NIH-funded research projects is directly in their path, so I wish they weren't stomping a mudhole across science and technology. But they are, and, as you note, they're doing it very effectively and with incredible speed. If it's outside our capability as a community to ev…

But they are doing it right - by their metric. Which is not the one others want them to be using.

By their own metrics, sure, maybe. I don't actually know what the real measurement of success is for them. But, to clarify, I didn't mean doing it right by their metric, I meant in my estimation, or [gestures broadly] our estimation.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#539

Consultants are misused if employed on a constant basis instead of employing enough senior staff directly. There are well known drivers on both sides that tend to promote such an unhealthy setup. What is concerning at the US government is not cutting consulting but at the same time cutting staff and on top creating a hostile environment for senior staff. This is unprecedented and is not something one would do in the…

In the UK, the preference for consultants and contractors was always because it’s accounted for differently on the balance sheet.

The consultants would actually cost more money overall, especially since they could be engaged longer than the average tenure of a full time engineer. But it wasn’t on the wage bill so it was fine.

In reality it was just really unfair to the full time engineers who, while they did get some benefits for being on board, did not get anything approaching equal compensation.

Even being outside IR35, which is the legislation that stops employees masquerading as contractors to lower their tax burden, they would fundamentally just be better-paid employees.

Of course, this is more on the individual level but even bringing in an agency… they could charge 1200 a day while the person on the job takes home about 400 of it if they’re lucky.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#540
post #229

Consultants are misused if employed on a constant basis instead of employing enough senior staff directly. There are well known drivers on both sides that tend to promote such an unhealthy setup. What is concerning at the US government is not cutting consulting but at the same time cutting staff and on top creating a hostile environment for senior staff. This is unprecedented and is not something one would do in the…

The ONLY time this occurs in the private sector is when corporate raiders are trying to extract every last penny from a business they plan on killing. Unsurprisingly this follows directly with project 2025s goal of dismantling the federal government and privatizing what departments aren’t filled with party loyalists at the expense of the average US citizen.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN