OpEd Contributors

[Print]  [Email]        

Why pay millions of dollars to defense contractor to build Recovery.gov?

By: Jerry Brito
Special to The Examiner
July 10, 2009

A Maryland-based IT firm that specializes in defense contracts was awarded the federal contract to build Recovery.gov, the government site meant to make stimulus spending transparent. The bill to taxpayers for this Web site will be $9.5 million in the next six months.

To put that in perspective, consider USASpending.gov, the Web site created by the Coburn-Obama Act of 2006 that tracks all federal contracts and grants. The government purchased the software for that site for $600,000 from nonprofit watchdog OMB Watch, which had developed the software for itself outside the federal procurement system.

Or, consider the many spending transparency Web sites that state governments have recently created. The most expensive of these is that of Texas, which cost $300,000 to develop. Most states spend less than $100,000 on transparency sites.

One of the most renowned Web development firms in the country is 37Signals in Chicago. Their Web applications consistently receive accolades for usability and design. With only 14 employees, they manage to put out amazing state-of-the-art sites that outclass anything the federal government has ever produced.

To them, a contract of this size would mean an annual salary of $1.3 million for each employee. Believe me, that’s not the market rate.

Of course, 37Signals could not have bid on this contract. It was open only to GSA “Alliant” contract holders, a set of 59 certified federal contractors including Lockheed Martin, BAE and Booz Allen Hamilton. Needless to say, the best Web developers in the country are not on this list.

The silver lining here is that after months of spending, this contract signals movement to finally disclose officially where the money has been going. More importantly, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which oversees Recovery.gov, has promised to make all of the raw spending data available to the public.

If they keep their promise it will mean that third parties, including nonprofits, newspapers and open-government nerds, will be able to create recovery tracking sites of their very own. No one should be surprised if these sites turn out to be better than Recovery.gov — and at a fraction of the cost.

Jerry Brito is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He is the co-creator of StimulusWatch.org.





To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Ben D.

Jul 24, 2009

"a contract of this size would mean an annual salary of $1.3 million for each employee"

Maybe not quite -- I suspect 37s has some pretty significant overhead other than salary. The cost of bandwidth for their web-based apps -- which millions of people use, and which never lag -- is probably pretty high.

But the point is well taken. 9.5 million to build a web site? I hope the itemized invoice is visible on recovery.gov when it's finished...

 

Fred

Jul 24, 2009

What makes you think they would be interested?

 

Eric Givens

Jul 24, 2009

OK, that works out to be about $2200/hour for EVERY hour of the day, not just hours worked. For a web site? That's almost criminal.

 

Ben D.

Jul 24, 2009

I couldn't resist a bit more number-crunching. A six-month contract for $9.5 million works out to an effective rate of $9,500 per hour, assuming 40-hour work weeks.

Even if only 1/4 of that hourly charge is allocated for the payroll of the people actually building the site, the defense contractor could have 28 full-time staff working on the project for the full six months, each earning around $75 per hour.

That's going to be one heck of a web site...

 

Ben D.

Jul 24, 2009

Hmm, wait a sec. According to the current recovery.gov, the $9.5 million price tag includes a lot more than just the development of the site -- things such as hardware, high-availability infrastructure, operations and support for an unspecified time period, etc. are also there.

So maybe the price tag isn't so outrageous after all.

 

Ben Jendrick

Jul 24, 2009

I can see how hardware would be important, but why is it that these government entities never consider doing something on Amazon's S3 or another highly secure public system? That would cut the cost by at least half. *shrug*

 

Ben D.

Jul 28, 2009

"Amazon's S3 or another highly secure public system?"

If high-availability is a requirement, it would have to be "S3 /and/ another system" because S3 does become unavailable from time to time.

Also I wonder how much data they're looking at, and whether there's a savings curve with hosted storage that eventually levels off when your data set grows large enough.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Cardinal has Luck going into Big Game showdown

Though he’s just a redshirt freshman, Andrew Luck... Full story

Entertainment

Reno Santa event inspired by SF revelers

About 5,000 Santa costume-clad folks are expected to... Full story

Entertainment

Scoop: Is J. Lo having ex tailed?

Is Jennifer Lopez playing hardball in her battle with... Full story