CGI Federal Is Crappy Because We Made It Crappy

Finally, after months of fumbling and ungainly public web design, CGI Federal, the lead contractor on healthcare.gov, is getting the boot. It's only partially self-administered. The Montreal-based CGI will be replaced by Accenture, a company headquartered in Chicago and Dublin that specializes in "consulting, technology services and outsourcing." CGI noted emphatically that it had not been fired, but instead just would not be picking up a two year $90 million maintainence contract for the site. Based on 2012 numbers, that $90 million represents just about a tenth of CGI's yearly income from federal contracts and a large drop in the bucket total.

The decision, the contractor claims, was mutual between CGI and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the agency overseeing the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the website healthcare.gov. Sure thing. Recall that during the thick of the rollout mess, Michelle Snyder, the now-former COO of the agency, quipped, "If we could fire them, we would.” I guess it's hard to just up and get rid of contractors, but it needs to be pointed out just how ironic the federal government's newfound disdain for CGI is.

CGI and other contractors that make their bread and butter off of federal projects aren't simply companies that are good at making different things and are bobbing in some sea of exceedingly dull names. A source of mine that worked on healthcare.gov from the government side, and that's familiar with CGI Federal and the federal contracting realm, was very blunt about the whole game. Rather than tap the company with the best idea or most experience, "government gives the lowest bidder the job," he told me. "Sometimes its an underdog looking for an opportunity, [but] that was 20 years ago. These days its either because they have a good product and looking to get [it] in or they actually suck. CGI sucks."

The government buys its contractors at Walmart, basically. To get your off-brand shirts into Walmart, you don't present to the big box store buyers that your shirts have amazing stitching and come from humane working conditions. You present a shirt that fits the basic requirements of a shirt and a dollar figure amenable to Walmart, which is the absolute lowest dollar amount possible. Perhaps in addition to charging the rock bottom, your shirt-making company is also very good at navigating the bureaucracy of Walmart shirt-buying. Even better.

It's kind of like that with federal contracting. "Federal acquisition regulation (FAR) doesn't account for quality of services based on previous engagements both in the government and outside," my source told me. "It's a flaw, a flaw that let's fuck up companies … get contracts." So, instead of project managers choosing contractors, you're much more likely to have accountants or managers trained to think like accountants. The right-wing howlers will whine about wasted money in the Affordable Care Act at least through this year's midterm elections, but seldom will you hear it pointed out that the problems were, above all else, rooted in being stingy.

Finally, the Walmart way of shopping for contractors creates a certain contract acquisition culture of companies that exist not to make or manage things, but to get contracts to make or manage things. Once this class of business has the contract, there's little incentive to do a great or even good job if it's not a prerequisite for getting future government work. Over time, you can easily see how a core business model might degrade to simple "getting contracts" and figuring the rest out later. Anyone can make a crappy shirt, after all. But not everyone can get the biggest retailer in the country to sell that crappy shirt.

@everydayelk