Re: It's not an either-or proposition

Posted by Kromey at 12:27pm Oct 25 '13
You must sign in to send Kromey a message

The article says:

Adding in potential options, the contract is now valued at $292 million. [Emphasis added]

Compared to what I said:

A last-minute surge this year brought CGI's contract's value up to nearly $300 million. [Emphasis added]

So, not sure what you're trying to argue against, since even the wording is almost identical...

And, CGI ain't done, so what they've been paid thus far isn't the end of it. They've been paid nearly $200 million, but they're also being asked to fix their steaming pile of a site. Not to mention that the administration is now also bringing in additional contractors! So we've already spent $200 million, on a contract that's still active and worth $300 million, plus we're throwing out additional contracts like Halloween candy -- which is only going to drive the costs further up!

Bottom line: There was nothing incorrect in my assertion about the cost of the site. Your 2-year-old news release about an ID/IQ contract -- a type of contract literally designed so it can grow without having to be re-bid -- only tells us exactly what I said about the original (obscene) budget, but obviously nothing about the growth in the subsequent 2 years, which has tripled the value of the contract that is still ongoing (and which, being an ID/IQ contract, can continue to grow), and we don't even know what the additional contracts will end up costing us!