WE are bdding on Recovery.gov

[Ellen Miller]

We as in all of *us* not just the Sunlight Foundation. And we need you
to
help out.

http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2009/06/17/we-are-going-bid-recoverygov/

This is big, quick, last minute, and awesome.

Ellen

[Thomas Lord]

Uh.

Gee, I'm sorry to say this. I'm sorry to be
the one to have to say this, especially given
my reputation in some circles as "Mr. Negativty
(whoa, bad vibe dude)". But...

Look, the proposal to bid here freely admits
that it is basically mad - insane - nuts. It
appeals to "even if we lose, there is principle
at stake" reasoning but, um, what principle exactly?
That unqualified and disorganized efforts should
run such things? That certain famous names should
run such things calling on minions of volunteers
and nepotistic trading partners?

There is a quote I half remember from the introduction
to the famous CS text book "The Structure and Interpretation
of Computer Programs". As I recall, in anticipation
of all of the sharp-knife tools the reader is about to
be taught in the text - and the natural feelings of
exaggerated power and enthusiasm that often follow - the
intro concludes on a note something like:

"Try not to screw the customer too badly."

Now it gets to that point by saying sure, go out
and do original stuff and take risks and be enthusiastic
and yadda yadda yadda but... that qualifier is critical.
Try not to screw the customer to badly. It says that
because so many of us *have* screwed customers badly.

Or as Nathaniel Borenstein once put it:

"We're computing professionals: we cause accidents!"

I think that the avoid-screwing-customers line is the
most important line in that whole book. In context,
it basically says:

"You're already smart. You're about to become way
smarter. You're still an idiot and don't overestimate
yourself. Show some damned responsibility, whydoncha."

The downsides of this initiative are huge:

On the miraculous chance a bid is generated and
accepted in the form advertised - performance of
the contract is likely to be sub-par, at the very
least. More likely: disastrous.

On the expected case that a bid either doesn't
happen or is so ridiculous as to be scarcely
considered, a great deal of social capital around
Sunlight will have been spent on an embarrassment.

I think y'all just damaged the open government
movement by quite a lot and with great efficiency.

-t






>
> Ellen
> >

[Jon Henke]

Are you kidding, Thomas?!?! Sunlight has done some of the most remarkable, impressive web development and transparency work anywhere. What makes you think they would be unqualified to produce an exceptional product?

The most important thing is the Big Idea - figuring out what's possible given the constraints and the data available, and how to present that information for users. That's exactly what Sunlight has always been good at.

Ellen, I think this is a fantastic idea. Win or lose, you're doing something very valuable. This is the definition of participatory democracy.


_________
Jon Henke


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lord <lo...@emf.net>

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:48:51
To: <openhous...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Clay Shirky<cl...@shirky.com>
Subject: [openhouseproject] Re: WE are bdding on Recovery.gov

[David Stephenson]

Ellen -- Just tweeted it.  Great idea!!
-- David


--
W. David Stephenson | Principal | Stephenson Strategies
D.Step...@stephensonstrategies.com
335 Main St., Medfield, MA 02052 | (508 ) 740-8918

Twitter: DavidStephenson

author, "Democratizing Data to transform government, workplaces and daily life," (in progress)

Making Recovery.gov the first step toward "smart" regulation: http://tinyurl.com/ctrwea

The Case for Democratizing Data: http://tinyurl.com/c9vkjy

Demolishing and replacing obsolete paradigms since 1988 (:o(|)

[Conor Kenny]

Apache > Netscape web server

Wikipedia > Encyclopedia Britannica 

Firefox > Microsoft Explorer

Linux > MSDOS

AppsForDemocracy > DC's previous resources

Future Melbourne Wiki > the old, closed Melbourne planning process

ChicagoCrime.org > Chicago PD's database

OpenOffice.org > Microsoft Office ($ for $)

and, of course, FedSpending.org -->  USASpending.gov

Bring on the disorganized and unqualified effort!

Sincerely,

a minion

[Jeremy Carbaugh]

Thomas,

I used to work as a government contractor before joining Sunlight. I
can tell you from firsthand experience that the capabilities of the
Sunlight Labs staff far exceeds that of most contracting firms. Would
you care to elaborate on why "performance of the contract is likely to
be sub-par"?

Given the high failure rate of government IT projects, I fail to see
why you assume Sunlight will "screw the customer" and the other
bidders will not. The contracting process itself is screwing the
customer much more than a Sunlight bid ever could.

Jeremy

[Clay Shirky]

> The downsides of this initiative are huge:
>
> On the miraculous chance a bid is generated and
> accepted in the form advertised - performance of
> the contract is likely to be sub-par, at the very
> least.  More likely: disastrous.

Even taking that idea at face value, that is, alas, par for this
particular course. Large USG IT efforts are often disastrous, as
attempted (and often aborted) upgrades at, variously, the FAA, FBI,
IRS, HHS et al have often been.

In other words, even if this bid is accepted and flames out in the
*worst possible way*, it will not be anywhere near the worst failures
of Gov't contracting in the last couple of decades.

> On the expected case that a bid either doesn't
> happen or is so ridiculous as to be scarcely
> considered, a great deal of social capital around
> Sunlight will have been spent on an embarrassment.

There is a long and noble tradition of quixotic attempts at changing
power dynamics whose failure illuminates a particular opportunity, as
with the campaign of Barry Goldwater. I can't seen much downside in
not being selected.

I think this effort, by simply dramatizing the possibility that
someone other than a Beltway contractor could even bid on such a
thing, is an interesting enough thought experiment, and should the bid
be accepted and fail as badly as a Beltway contractor would (something
that strikes me as unlikely), even in that circumstance, simply
introducing a different mode of failure other than 'Death By Gantt
Chart" would be a salubrious addition to the organizations involved.

-c

[Thomas Lord]

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 01:39 +0000, Jon Henke wrote:
> Are you kidding, Thomas?!?!

No.

> Sunlight has done some of the most remarkable,
> impressive web development and transparency work
> anywhere.

I do not disagree at all. That is not at issue.
What is at issue here is capacity for the task at
hand and appropriateness and professionalism of the
effort to construct a bid.

> What makes you think they would be unqualified
> to produce an exceptional product?

They have never done anything similar to what
the contract calls for. They don't even have *in place*
any plan for managing payroll for an effort of this
scale, nevermind 24/7 support and so forth.
It's an embarrassingly amateur proposal.

> The most important thing is the Big Idea -

Meh. Big Ideas, plural, are good to kick around.
They have their place, definitely.

And it's great to do as Sunlight did here say
"Hey kids, what say we sweep out barn X and put
on a show?" - but they have to pick the value of
X and this choice of value for X is just over the
top unprofessional.

> figuring out what's possible given the constraints
> and the data available, and how to present that
> information for users. That's exactly what Sunlight
> has always been good at.

Uh... I don't know I'd frame their strengths
quite that way but it probably isn't important
to quibble over it.

> Ellen, I think this is a fantastic idea.
> Win or lose, you're doing something very valuable.
> This is the definition of participatory democracy.

Hmm.

-t

[Thomas Lord]

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:11 -0400, Jeremy Carbaugh wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I used to work as a government contractor before joining Sunlight. I
> can tell you from firsthand experience that the capabilities of the
> Sunlight Labs staff far exceeds that of most contracting firms.

That I can believe but I don't think they are
up to this job, from what I saw of the RFP. Not
by a long shot and not by watching the delta over
time of the "let's make a proposal" wiki.

I think the smarter move would have been a meta:

Sunlight should kibbitz and scrutinize and second guess
the bids from qualified people. Sunlight should be doing
citizen-based-grass-roots QA on this one, not trying to
bid for the contract.

> Would
> you care to elaborate on why "performance of the contract is likely to
> be sub-par"?

There are many reasons but some good clues are that
they have no track-record of non-internal 24/7 mission
critical support and, in the quest for this quixotic bid
they state up front they don't have staff or even any
clue how to manage payroll when quickly adding staff.

> Given the high failure rate of government IT projects, I fail to see
> why you assume Sunlight will "screw the customer" and the other
> bidders will not.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If the project is going
to fail (a significant possibility, I'm sure) I'd rather
see someone other than sunlight be the ones who blow it.

> The contracting process itself is screwing the
> customer much more than a Sunlight bid ever could.
>

Yeah, yeah. Let's discredit the notion of a
Sunlight bid even further by making it crystal
clear that the intent is to pursue a political agenda
rather than to do proper software engineering.

-t

[Thomas Lord]

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:13 -0400, Clay Shirky wrote:

> In other words, even if this bid is accepted and flames out in the
> *worst possible way*, it will not be anywhere near the worst failures
> of Gov't contracting in the last couple of decades.

Gee, now I'm *really* enthusiastic about a Sunlight
bid.

> There is a long and noble tradition of quixotic attempts at changing
> power dynamics whose failure illuminates a particular opportunity, as
> with the campaign of Barry Goldwater. I can't seen much downside in
> not being selected.

It's a bad joke, man.

> I think this effort, by simply dramatizing the possibility that
> someone other than a Beltway contractor could even bid on such a
> thing, is an interesting enough thought experiment,

Yet, in reality it is far, far beyond the "thought experiment"
stage.

> and should the bid
> be accepted and fail as badly as a Beltway contractor would (something
> that strikes me as unlikely), even in that circumstance, simply
> introducing a different mode of failure other than 'Death By Gantt
> Chart" would be a salubrious addition to the organizations involved.

Be sure to include that paragraph in the proposal.

-t





> -c
>
> >

[Martin Bosworth]

Thomas,

You're totally overthinking it.

Like Jeremy, I too worked as a government contractor. The RFP process is one of the most bizarre, wasteful, baroque, and inefficient systems imaginable. You hire experienced writers and force them to write paragraph after paragraph saying the same thing in slightly different ways, using incredibly formalized, precise, and totally incomprehensible language that obscures the point completely. Stop me if that sounds familiar to you. :)

And that's only the beginning. Clays Johnson, Shirky, and others have noted the horrific wastefulness of the contracting process, from cost-plus structures that enable firms to be paid their full price and then some, even if they fail, to bids that guarantee you'll get the lowest-paid, least-trained workers while the agency collects a 200 percent markup. I've been there, man. It's horrific.

Plus, let's be honest--outside a small community of techno-nerds, the vast majority of the free world does not give a damn if Sunlight succeeds or fails. If they fail, let them do so while demonstrating how completely broken the process is. If they succeed, the potential is vast. Either outcome produces a desirable result.

Of all people, I would not have expected you to be such a wet blanket. This is all about decentralization and movement away from centralized, inefficient systems, something I know for a fact you favor.

Innovation requires failure in order to succeed. You know this. Let them take the leap, and see how far they get. Don't shoot them down before they even cross the gap.

Martin H. Bosworth
Managing Editor, ConsumerAffairs.Com
(http://www.consumeraffairs.com)
Blog: Boztopia.com (http://www.boztopia.com)
LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/martinbosworth
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/martinonfacebook
Plaxo: http://martinbosworth.myplaxo.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/martinboz

[ndic...@gmail.com]

On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, Clay Shirky <c...@shirky.com> wrote:

> I think this effort, by simply dramatizing the possibility that
> someone other than a Beltway contractor could even bid on such a
> thing, is an interesting enough thought experiment, and should the bid
> be accepted and fail as badly as a Beltway contractor would (something
> that strikes me as unlikely), even in that circumstance, simply
> introducing a different mode of failure other than 'Death By Gantt
> Chart" would be a salubrious addition to the organizations involved.
>
> -c

Just a couple thoughts on this, it is hardly unique to have folks
outside the beltway trying (and usually failing) to bid on government
contracts. Just go to the Small Business Office for Federal
contracts, or the one of the many agency offices like AT&L Small
Business Office in DoD for example, to get vast lists of thousands of
businesses trying to get through the front gate. This happens all the
time, all year long.

In DoD, the Agency I spend most of my time, the National Defense
University produced a report to Congress in 2006 titled the
Information Technology Program (http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/NDU%20IT
%20Report%20to%20Congress(Feb14%2006).pdf). This report listed
bunches of reasons why outside companies eventually gave up trying to
do business with the Department. The reasons included that they
didn't understand the FAR process, they didn't have expertise to do
these convoluted RFPs, they didn't have money to hire an ex-2 star
General to market, they didn't want to give away their intellectual
property to prime contractors, and perhaps most importantly, they had
no idea whether the Federal government needed what they could make.

So now you have a situation where there are bunches of companies
trying to get through the front gate (not unlike Sunlight in this
circumstance), and LOTS more who have already given up and gone on
their way. The problem in a nutshell is all the policies we have
implimented in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to ensure we
don't allow waste, fraud and abuse in procurement. Talk about the law
of unintended consequences! By instituting the vast array of bizarre
competition protections, we have in effect, eliminated most of the
individual problem cases, but have replaced it with vast systemic
waste which limits Federal work to a very few select usual suspects.

Incidentally, Representative Adam Smith (D-Washington), who heads up
the subcommittee on Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional
Threats, has attempted to address this problem in DoD when he
introduced Section 881 of the FY2008 NDAA (Clearinghouse for rapid
identification and dissemination of commercial information
technologies). This has eventually led to what is now titled the
DoDTechipedia project. Once we get the external site up, it hopefully
will at least address the situational awareness problem where
companies and research organizations will be able to get their
emerging technologies and products in front of decision makers, while
editing wiki pages on the state of the practice of the technologies
they care about. The other piece of this is the funding part. While
we have a prototype experiment under way in something called
DefenseSolutions.gov, the real mark on the wall we should be shooting
for is emulating the Defence Research Suppliers Portal in the UK's
Ministry of Defence (http://www.science.mod.uk). They accept ideas
from industry and researchers on any topic using a very brief form.
They give an answer within 15 days, and have those they accept under
contract in 30 days, up to 200,000 pounds. All those who are impacted
by this decision are involved in it - the operators in the field, the
logisticians charged with maintaining it, and the science & technology
program managers who will run the program to bring the submitted idea
to fruition all sign off on it prior to acceptance (all within 30
days). Unfortunately in our case, most agencies don't have the
authority to do this sort of thing. Only those who have the ability
to procure outside of the FAR process do - I believe that includes the
DoD, DHS and the National Science Foundation.

[Thomas Lord]

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:21 -0700, Martin Bosworth wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> You're totally overthinking it.
>
> Like Jeremy, I too worked as a government contractor. The RFP process
> is one of the most bizarre, wasteful, baroque, and inefficient systems
> imaginable. You hire experienced writers and force them to write
> paragraph after paragraph saying the same thing in slightly different
> ways, using incredibly formalized, precise, and totally
> incomprehensible language that obscures the point completely. Stop me
> if that sounds familiar to you. :)

It does sound familiar. It sounds rational.
Management is hard, it turns out. Go figure.

> And that's only the beginning. Clays Johnson, Shirky, and others have
> noted the horrific wastefulness of the contracting process, from
> cost-plus structures that enable firms to be paid their full price and
> then some, even if they fail, to bids that guarantee you'll get the
> lowest-paid, least-trained workers while the agency collects a 200
> percent markup. I've been there, man. It's horrific.

As executed, no doubt. Sunshine should have pressed
here to stick their nose in in a QA role, not a
proposer role.

> Plus, let's be honest--outside a small community of techno-nerds, the
> vast majority of the free world does not give a damn if Sunlight
> succeeds or fails. If they fail, let them do so while demonstrating
> how completely broken the process is. If they succeed, the potential
> is vast. Either outcome produces a desirable result.

I'm sorry, but I think that attitude is horribly
irresponsible and unprofessional.

> Of all people, I would not have expected you to be such a wet blanket.

Um, what voice are we using here on this list? Can
I "work blue"?

Piss off to that "wet blanket" insult, I'm showing some
backbone in contrast to the desperation of the
proposal to make a bid. Pardon my language, please -
it seemed the most expedient expression of an idea that
seems to me to be essential.

> This is all about decentralization and movement away from
> centralized, inefficient systems, something I know for a fact you
> favor.

Don't put words in my mouth, please. You are conflating
separate issues.

> Innovation requires failure in order to succeed. You know this. Let
> them take the leap, and see how far they get. Don't shoot them down
> before they even cross the gap.

"They" can do a lot better than they did here
and they still can.

-t

[ndic...@gmail.com]

On Jun 18, 1:21 am, Martin Bosworth <martinhboswo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And that's only the beginning. Clays Johnson, Shirky, and others have noted
> the horrific wastefulness of the contracting process, from cost-plus
> structures that enable firms to be paid their full price and then some, even
> if they fail, to bids that guarantee you'll get the lowest-paid,
> least-trained workers while the agency collects a 200 percent markup. I've
> been there, man. It's horrific.

Just to be clear here, while its easy to paint the run-of-the-mill
government contractors as the villain, the real problem is the set of
laws that codify this mess. Believe it or not, the FAR was set up and
continues to be modified for the absolute best of intentions - to
eliminate waste, fraud and abuse while creating a level playing
field. As a for instance, Cost-plus contracts are necessary when the
technical risk factors are too high (I can go through a spiel on
technology readiness levels if anyone is interested) - meaning there
is no chance of a contractor being able to come up with a valid
estimate to solve hard technical problems. We all know the maladies
these contracts can have - ballooning overspending, etc. But usually,
its sort of impossible to switch these to FFP. And the whole bit
about the lowest paid bid winning is again embedded in the FAR - as
long as a bid is considered "technically qualified", than lowest price
usually wins. In short, we far prefer Yugos to Toyotas in govt, and
don't mind that we pay 5 times more fixing the Yugo.

But there is hope. It looks like there is a real desire in the new
administration to come up with innovative acquisition approaches to
get around all this mess. So the extent to which Sunlight can
highlight the plight of outside companies, the better off we all will
be.

[Martin Bosworth]

Forgive me if I wasn't clear in addressing that the root cause of contracting process corruption fraud & waste is the law. You're absolutely right about that. The process was written poorly and enabled other actors to game the system.

Make no mistake, a lot of gov't contractors ARE evil :), but they get away with their evil because the system primes the pump for them to do so.

Martin H. Bosworth
Managing Editor, ConsumerAffairs.Com
(http://www.consumeraffairs.com)
Blog: Boztopia.com (http://www.boztopia.com)
LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/martinbosworth
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/martinonfacebook
Plaxo: http://martinbosworth.myplaxo.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/martinboz

[Martin Bosworth]

Thomas,

If you think you can do better, you ought to step up and make a bid yourself, or at least participate in Sunlight's collaborative process so you can point them what you think is the right direction.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, for the record, because these aren't separate issues. They flow from the same principle--distributing responsibility and enabling new actors to bring innovative ideas to bear through streamlining wasteful processes.

You haven't really substantiated any of your criticism beyond saying how irresponsible this is for them to try it. I say it's irresponsible for them not to. And I know a bit about distributed responsibility in management, because I am management. I trust my people to do their jobs in the most efficient way possible, even if that means doing things differently than I would instruct or how I would do it. Results trump process.

Martin H. Bosworth
Managing Editor, ConsumerAffairs.Com
(http://www.consumeraffairs.com)
Blog: Boztopia.com (http://www.boztopia.com)
LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/martinbosworth
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/martinonfacebook
Plaxo: http://martinbosworth.myplaxo.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/martinboz

[ndic...@gmail.com]

On Jun 18, 4:30 pm, Martin Bosworth <martinhboswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgive me if I wasn't clear in addressing that the root cause of
> contracting process corruption fraud & waste is the law. You're absolutely
> right about that. The process was written poorly and enabled other actors to
> game the system.
>
> Make no mistake, a lot of gov't contractors ARE evil :), but they get away
> with their evil because the system primes the pump for them to do so.

There's a saying that applies here - "You are what you eat." Its
fairly clear to everyone that govt contracting is a slimy business, so
many of those companies that live completely in it are...

Just another thought for consumption - nobody ever intended the FAR to
end up in its current state. As Kenneth Boulding, one of the founders
of General Systems Theory used to say, "Things are the way they are
because they got that way." Nobody could have planned this even if
they had wanted to. And I would still contend that for the most part,
the FAR ended up like it is for mostly good intentions. Of course,
congressional outrage over whatever the latest contracting fiasco of
the day was contributed mightily to poorly thought out remedies.

[Thomas Lord]

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 13:35 -0700, Martin Bosworth wrote:
> Thomas,
>

> If you think you can do better,

I don't. I think that Sunlight's considerable
community good will and internal talents can
be better spent otherwise so let me foreclose
the line of counter-criticism you start there
and go on to answer some of your more substantial
points.

> I didn't put any words in your mouth, for the record, because these
> aren't separate issues. They flow from the same
> principle--distributing responsibility and enabling new actors to
> bring innovative ideas to bear through streamlining wasteful
> processes.

There is little that can set that admirable
goal back more efficiently than an implausible
attempt that fails. But your main point:

> You haven't really substantiated any of your criticism beyond saying
> how irresponsible this is for them to try it.

I think I have but I didn't dwell on it so, let's
dig in a bit.

The RFP isn't just "design a web site" but
design, per constraints and interacting with
various bodies - then implement - then support
that web site. Sunlight is quite up front that
not only don't they have experience in that regard
other than internally, they don't have the manpower
for this job and aren't even equipped with an up-front
notion of how to do the junction between the contract
and managing hourly-basis consultants. These are
not the makings of a strong bid - they are the makings
of a bid that never happens or that happens but is
an outlier in how weak it is.

It would be super duper for Sunlight to develop the
core competencies and capacity for a job like this.
It is a pleasing daydream to imagine developing those
competencies and capacity "on the job" but, realistically,
this job is a very high profile project, the RFP is most likely
already formulated to favor a certain niche of established
gov't contractors -- nothing good (apart from this discussion)
can come from Sunlight's pursuit of this thing. Most likely
you lose for painfully obvious reasons and, should you win,
everything that subsequently goes wrong can be traced
back to the wildly amateur origins and structure of this
project thereby discrediting everything Sunlight seems to
stand for.

I see this not as a case of Sunlight trying to be evil
but of Sunlight, in a fit of over-enthusiasm, over-reaching
beyond their grasp, blowing off the better option (grass
roots QA), and calling into question their approach to
IT engineering.

What I'm calling "unprofessional", to be specific,
is the attitude that "Odds are, someone else does recovery.org
and it is going to suck so we can go in with a proposal we think
has slightly smaller chance to suck - and if we win the bid
and it sucks, it's the system's fault." Shortened, that
sentiment amounts to: "We're happy to produce sucky results
here."

> I say it's irresponsible for them not to. And I know a bit about
> distributed responsibility in management, because I am management. I
> trust my people to do their jobs in the most efficient way possible,
> even if that means doing things differently than I would instruct or
> how I would do it. Results trump process.

If y'all are going to be stubborn, dig in your heals,
and not back off this thing I've certainly no standing
to stop you. Perhaps if you succeed I get some paradoxical
credit and discredit for playing the skeptic who was wrong
about your chances yet who inspired some to "prove Tom wrong".
More power to y'all if all goes well.

[Clay Johnson]

All,

The more time you spend typing long-winded emails arguing with each other on this email list, the less time you're spending *actually* opening our government up, making it more accountable and more transparent. We have a 6-9 month opportunity to make a massive impact, try new things, and see what works before we're taken back into years of partisan bickering and nonsense.

We need to get to work. This is an experiment. If you disagree with it, that's great. Thank you for your feedback, we are proceeding, and we'd love you to help. If you do agree with it, we need your help.

Thanks,

--Clay
Director of Sunlight Labs
http://twitter.com/cjoh

--
Clay Johnson
Director of Sunlight Labs
cjoh...@sunlightfoundation.com
AIM: knowpost
Google: clayjohnson
Calendar: http://bit.ly/xWvu
2afa8aa5f689ec8ef84f0911aab0895d

[Chris Baker]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Lord <lo...@emf.net> wrote:

It would be super duper for Sunlight to develop the
core competencies and capacity for a job like this.

As someone who actually spends part of his professional time working on these things I'm going to have to agree with Thomas here. As with any activity that has the potential to make billions of dollars there is a craft to this that one doesn't enter into lightly. It is a painful, laborious process. There is nothing more important to government contractors. This is literally their bread and butter.

Every bullet point on that wiki is something that the groups should spend literally weeks if not months of man hours arguing over.

I think that it would be wonderful for this organization to build up the skills to be a part of these sorts of bids, but to dive into it blind is to set the organization up for failure, and frankly gives off the aura of amateurishness. This is serious stuff. If you want to get into this area, do your homework. It make take years, but it is a noble goal.

Chris
http://www.google.com/reader/shared/12082411052375043340
http://semanticcaucus.blogspot.com/

[Thomas Lord]

Clay (J), and Clay (S):

First, I apologize for being a bonehead and mistaking
one of you for the other based on first names.

Second: I'm done. I don't think I have anything to add
my critique that wouldn't amount to repeating myself.

Do whatever you do and best of luck to you. If it turns
out that you prove me completely wrong, why, then, gee
I'm hardly going to complain, am I? Rather, I'll just
ask if you can kindly spare a towel for the egg on my face :-)

I'm game to offer helpful participation and limited
in what I can afford and what I feel ethically comfortable
offering. I can be good for a few gratis hours reviewing
a draft bid against the RFP, if that would help. I'm
pretty comfortable with legalize and bureaucratize and
also pretty competent to understand what the text of a
bid actually implies.... Let me know.

-t

[Greg Elin]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Chris Baker <ign...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that it would be wonderful for this organization to build up the skills to be a part of these sorts of bids, but to dive into it blind is to set the organization up for failure, and frankly gives off the aura of amateurishness. This is serious stuff. If you want to get into this area, do your homework. It make take years, but it is a noble goal.

I find myself in complete agreement with Chris. The current approach smacks of amateurishness.

The transparency community *should* try putting together a bid...but for purposes of it's own edification of what working with the government means and what it *might* look like to work in a different way as partners with government in the future.

Look, the Recovery Board is composed entirely of Inspector Generals. Their idea of accountability is the kind that activates the most fearsome powers of the state to determine who did right, who did wrong, and who is put in prison for long periods. Indeed, it is these IGs' orientation toward seriousness of purpose, discretion, process, and securely managing criminal evidence that explains in large part why Recovery.gov is so mediocre on transparency and end-user experience thus far. When you think about it, Recovery.gov is pretty damn transparent and progressive for a site whose executive managers are ex-cops and prosecutors. They need a dose of hacker mentality...but one that recognizes process and professionalism are the indicators of ability to deliver in this situation.

The SOO is explicit that Recovery Board controls the content on the website: "The Offeror shall submit all plans, designs and content to the RATB Content Manager/Governance Board for approval prior to public release." It's going to look pretty fucking weird for Sunlight to defend the quality of bad editorial decisions by the Recovery Board 5 months from now by saying, "We built Recovery.gov according to the specifications of the Recovery Board." It's also going to look pretty weird for Sunlight grantees like OMBWatch and Center for Responsive Politics and Littlesis.org, etc., to be praising what a great job Sunlight did with Recovery.gov when they are all receiving $$ from Sunlight. (And just as weird for them to criticize, too.) And lastly on the weird front, I'm trying to imagine the transparency community ferretting around on Recovery.gov for people who played fast and loose with contracting bids on projects while the transparency community is also celebrating how they beat the system and built Recovery.gov while talking smack about beaucratic procurement processes. (+1 to Noel for offering substantive material.)

I'll be honest, I've been thinking about organizing a bid and even posted that the Coalition for Accountable Recovery (CAR) should pursue a bid (before the actual bid was put out). CAR has over two dozen non-profits as a partners including Sunlight and including Mercatus Institute and Good Jobs First who have already build some live Recovery-related sites, and OMBWatch who built FedSpending.org. (Sunlight funded it.) I started putting out a few feelers. But that was before I read the bid. So I'm not against a bid from the transparency community, just against a bid that is half-hearted just make a point.  Because the point won't get made. Only if the effort is a jaw-dropping exercise in community building, not a freakin' wiki, is the point made. To my thinking the Linux community did not set out to build an operating system as-good-as Windows (or work under a deadline). The iPhone wasn't a phone with an Apple logo on it, it was a device from the future. And Obama convinced many he could be a better President because he ran a better presidential campaign; and not just a better campaign, a way better campaign--on the traditional fronts as well as new media front. So, poo-poing the risks is just denial and the wrong attitude. It's one thing if a new player or independent developers do a bid with Sunlight cheerleading, but Sunlight putting together a less  spectacular bid could really undermine the authority with which Sunlight and this community speaks. My father used to say, "Better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

The country and Recovery.gov Board needs the very best we can offer, an all-hands-on-deck effort to borrow a phrase. This isn't 2004 with early experiments in collaboration and social media. The viability (and publicity) of such effort will be in direct proportion to the seriousness with its participants treat all its aspects and demonstrates the organizing campaign to get the contract was way better than every other bid's effort. Otherwise, the only point that will be made is, yes, we, too, can do business as usual and get paid to do so with taxpayer dollars.

Greg Elin
gr...@fotonotes.net
http://twitter.com/gregelin
skype: fotonotes
aim: wiredbike
cell: 917-304-3488

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Greg Elin<wire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The transparency community *should* try putting together a bid...but for
> purposes of it's own edification of what working with the government means
> and what it *might* look like to work in a different way as partners with
> government in the future.

I've remained silent on this thread but probably should have spoke up
earlier, given that I study contracts and procurement.

I did want to add one thing: Even if Sunlight doesn't submit a bid,
there would be value in a similar organization trying to work up what
it would take to submit a competitive bid (and I'll not speak to
possible opportunity costs). Often in bidding, there are mechanisms
to ask for formal clarifications of the RFB/RFP/RFQ... these documents
aren't nearly as complete as they seem at first blush and bidders need
to have a method for clarifying ambiguities, missing elements,
inconsistencies, etc.

Used in a strategic sense, this is also not a bad way to get a better
idea of exactly what the client envisions the thing should look like
when all is said and done... which, frankly, a bunch of us have spent
a lot of time already this year speculating about for Recovery.gov.
::) best, Joe

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/

[Clay Johnson]

Here's the latest on what we're up to and what we've learned on the Recovery.gov front:

http://bit.ly/eZ31T

[Conor Kenny]

Joseph,

Here, do you mean we could, say, get a requirement that the data be open and available through API?

Often in bidding, there are mechanisms
to ask for formal clarifications of the RFB/RFP/RFQ... these documents
aren't nearly as complete as they seem at first blush and bidders need
to have a method for clarifying ambiguities, missing elements,
inconsistencies, etc.

If so, and considering the restrictions Clay discussed in his latest post, this could be where our greatest contribution could be. Perhaps we could also get requirements for transparency in the process of building the site?

I recently attended a meeting called by the Austin, TX city IT staff to discuss the ground-up reworking of the city's website and underlying databases, and they had the wisdom to invite people from various accessibility, openness, academic and developer communities. 

The city noted theirs and other's unsavory experiences with government contractors doing whole-kit-and-caboodle projects of this size. Someone (Silona Bonewald, I believe) said that if the process and the architecture weren't open, robust, and modular enough to allow multi-party participation, well, ur doing it wrong. 

Working to make sure the Recovery.gov process is doing it right would be an accomplishment in and of itself.

cheers,

Conor

__________________________________________________

Conor Kenny
Senior Editor, OpenCongress.org

Sunlight Foundation

cke...@sunlightfoundation.com
 202-277-6427
Twitter.com/ConorKenny

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

Heya,

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Conor
Kenny<cke...@sunlightfoundation.com> wrote:
> Here, do you mean we could, say, get a requirement that the data be open and
> available through API?

(BTW, I've put an OCR'd version of the SOO up here that you need not
log in to scribd to get:
http://josephhall.org/misc/16515421-RAT-Board-Solicitation-OCR.pdf )

Well, it's more like you submit something that says, "We're a bit
unclear on x and y requirements and need clarification to make a
substantively responsive bid." They can typically issue an update to
all bidders with responses to these requests for clarification.
However, this is not your normal procurement, as Clay and you guys
have found out... and I suspect their answer would be to have you
bracket the requirement (specify what you'd do on a spectrum of
possibilities).

I haven't looked at this SOO much, so I'm not sure what the timeline
is (sounds very expedited) and if they mention an avenue for
clarifying pieces of the SOO.

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

Ah, p. 40 of the SOO specifies who to send questions to and that the
answers are posted to the GSA's ITSS system... unfortunately today's
the last day to submit questions. Drat.

If you can monitor the answers they've posted (and will post) to these
questions via someone who has access to ITSS, you will at least learn
who's thinking about bidding (I think, unless they anonymize the
questions by not associating the question with prospective bidders)
and at most will see how they further specify the requirements. best,
Joe

[ndic...@gmail.com]

I just wanted to address a point Clay put on the Sunlight Blog:

"After speaking with a couple of these companies, many have no
intention of bidding on the contract. In general, the amount of risk
involved in doing it is far too high: the time-frame is too short (2
months) and the risk of failure in a very public way is too high."

Just another bit of proposal experience for you to ponder or ignore at
your leisure.

1. If you didn't know about the solicitation prior to it being
released your chances of winning it are well below 10%, even if you
have a good team. Why? Because folks that are good at this have long
ago smelt out where the money is coming from, and have engaged in
informal conversations with the Technical Point of Contact (known as
the TPOC) and Contracting Officer (Known as the COR) to find out what
they really care about. Said another way, once the RFP hits the
streets its illegal to have any real contact with these folks - so you
get all the real information prior to its release.

2. Once an RFP is released, the first actual step is to determine if
you think the contract is "wired" (this is a good thing if you're the
one its wired for, but is obviously a bad thing if its meant for
someone else). This means you find indications that the customer
probably already knows who they want to win the RFP, and have built
information like this in the Statement of Work or Objectives. Taking
these two points together and combining them with Clay's point above,
if, for instance, I as a company have already talked with the TPOC and
have convinced him of an approach which I am positive my company can
implement in two months, based on my proprietary codebase I've already
got in place, I would be dropping hits to the TPOC to have this
requirement embedded in the RFP.

And there's lots of other ways to wire something - usually you find it
in bizarre SOW requirements or in bizarre key personnel requirements
(e.g., the program manager must have at least "18 years experience
working with bizarre system #1, and thorough knowledge of bizarre
process A" for instance). Putting it more bluntly, if I'm in the
"pole" position and know I should probably be winning the contract,
I'm going to be fairly pissed off if I didn't have a hand in writing
the SOW (or more legally, "can I give you some words to help you think
through what you want in the solicitation, Mr. TPOC?"). That's pretty
much an indication that I've been lazy and inattentive.

So in short, if something in an RFP looks damn weird, or virtually
impossible to do (such as a full redesign in 2 months), chances are
they already have someone in mind. And if so, and they've done their
jobs right, they've also told (in a round about way, of course) at
least two other contractors to bid high on the job so everything looks
on the up-and-up. The other contractors of course do this because
they'll be wiring jobs in their own expertise area sometime in the
near future (or in the recent past). This is how the game is played
on omnibus contract vehicles.

Just food for thought...



On Jun 19, 4:10 pm, Clay Johnson <cjohn...@sunlightfoundation.com>
wrote:

> Here's the latest on what we're up to and what we've learned on the
> Recovery.gov front:
>
> http://bit.ly/eZ31T
>

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joeh...@gmail.com>wrote:

> cjohn...@sunlightfoundation.com

[Charlie]

Just a heads up, the government runs its contracts pretty tight.
Contracting officers won't take kindly to what you're up to here.
Sunlight may influence future outcomes by making it publicly known
that it intends to file FOIA requests on the bids and ask to attend
the debriefs with the losers. Also, see page 14 of the Alliant
contract that calls for a contractor bidding on a project to "promote
the use of open source solutions and open technology development where
practicable to enable [this] reuse." You might be more effective by
publicizing this widely and serve as a post award watch dog on this
one.

On Jun 19, 4:10 pm, Clay Johnson <cjohn...@sunlightfoundation.com>
wrote:

> Here's the latest on what we're up to and what we've learned on the
> Recovery.gov front:
>
> http://bit.ly/eZ31T
>

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joeh...@gmail.com>wrote:

> cjohn...@sunlightfoundation.com

[Robert Millis]

Very, very good points. However, all of this, for me, simply
underscores the reasons why Sunlight needs to move forward with this
idea.



On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:15 PM, "ndic...@gmail.com"

[Charlie]

ndickover is exactly right, welcome to the beltway n00bs. Oh and one other thing, the two months is in there so there's a starting point for what's called re-baselining. Clearly a game, but not to be confused with what is done prior to a baseball game.

[Jim Harper]

Excellent comment/insight, Noel.

Featured here: http://techliberation.com/2009/06/20/18922/

Jim Harper

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:15 PM, ndic...@gmail.com <ndic...@gmail.com> wrote:

[K & E Brandon]

For those of us who delight in analyzing the way the media is used as
a cudgel against the American people, I want to sound a teeny caution
bell about the entire "let's get some publicity on this process." A
lot of us have seen how, for example, a subject like "transparency in
government" is completely blacked out of the MSM discussion - UNTIL
something goes wrong, and suddenly it's on the cover of USA Today:
"How Grassroots Hackers Nearly Destroyed Democracy".

This is NOT a wet blanket on the idea though - I'm of the opinion that
Sunlight should do this, and do it to the hilt; don't just bid on this
project, do what serious contractors do and bid on everything that
comes down the pike, develop the relationships with subcontractors so
that you are ready to "hit the ground running" (the most commonly
repeated quote among people who do this a lot) when something this
good comes your way again. Take this one absolutely seriously, and
crank it up every time out.

Which leads me to this practical question: What do we know, if
anything, about the other candidates for the job? What are their core
competencies and how are they likely to divvy up this work? I don't
see even a remote outside shot that there is the slightest incentive
for one of the 59 companies eligible to bid to take Sunlight in on
this - the work is just too time-intensive and it's done for money, as
well as proving that the company is reliable for the next job. I have
a hard time seeing any company willing to bring in a third party, even
for constructive criticism. There just isn't the time in a real
business environment. But maybe knowing something about who the other
players are is a starting point for developing the relationships and
getting into the groove you have to be in to succeed in this worst of
worlds.

On Jun 20, 8:26 am, Jim Harper <jim.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent comment/insight, Noel.
>
> Featured here:http://techliberation.com/2009/06/20/18922/
>
> Jim Harper
>

[ndic...@gmail.com]

Just to close the loop on this, the fact that the govt representative
sometimes might have a preference for a particular contractor prior to
an award is not as bad as it might sound. The question to ask is what
are they getting out of this arrangement? Almost always, no money is
changing hands, nor are any real favors being granted. So why would
they do this? My answer to this is fairly basic - they are
controlling for risk. The government representative has already made
a determination that a particular contractor can get their need met in
a way that solves whatever their problem is. For whatever reason,
they've developed confidence that their chosen contractor will succeed
at this task, where its not so clear that other contractors who they
either don't know or don't understand how their technical approach
will actually solve the problem.

In short, just like folks outside of government, sometimes government
representatives get a warm and fuzzy with one organization over other
ones. By no means am I saying any of this is right, but its certainly
different than say, instances where a government representative is
trying to steer a contract for their own personal gain. This happens
but is definitely in the very small percentage of cases. FAR more
normal is the case I outlined above where the government rep really
needs their problem solved within a specific set of parameters, and
when they find someone they "know" can solve it (or at least they have
a high degree of confidence they can), they're more likely to choose
the known quantity. Obviously personal relationships come in to play,
which is why so many govt contractors hire ex-govies. If you've
worked with someone for 20-30 years, even though they get their
paycheck from a different organization now, you still trust them.

Noel

On Jun 20, 11:26 am, Jim Harper <jim.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent comment/insight, Noel.
>
> Featured here:http://techliberation.com/2009/06/20/18922/
>
> Jim Harper
>

[Clay Johnson]

In case you all didn't see this, wanted to close the closed loop on this and let you know the end of this chapter of the story of Recovery.gov: http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2009/06/25/recoverygov-bid-we-failed/

Thanks for the good discussion, it was interesting stuff, and we learned a whole bunch and got a lot out of it. I'm really pleased with the results.

cjoh...@sunlightfoundation.com