Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then it must have been quite some time since you worked in the field... not that Oracle is the same thing as what's going on with Recovery.gov, but reading the RFQ, it's pretty clear why the cost is not overblown.
Excuse me - how long has the current Recovery.gov been functional?
How much was the initial startup cost for the site?
Are they just now realizing it is insufficient for the task at hand?
That means they likely have wasted millions of dollars already.
Quote:
Recovery.gov version 1.0 is currently hosted on a Linux server and Drupal is used for the content management system (CMS) and a MySQL database. RATB is open to recommendations for technology improvements for version 2.0 and beyond, including the hosting platform, database technology, CMS, programming languages, etc. that facilitate satisfaction of the requirements described in this SOO. However, the Offeror selected for this procurement will have to provide a design flexible enough to launch the new website using existing technology as well as any technological improvements suggested. RATB strives to improve the workflow and process automation technologies that rely heavily on manual reviews of data submissions.
Revision 1 was apparently inadequate from the get go.
Quote:
RATB seeks to leverage existing infrastructure (hardware, software, and contracts) and relationships where practicable, and to minimize the requirement for new infrastructure to support processing and data storage for Recovery.gov.
This is how it works when you do a big website. 1st build - see how it works, 2nd build - make it work better, 3rd, 4th, 5th build... wash, rinse, repeat.
My company does MUCH smaller ones and the first build usually stays up about 6 months.
"Smartronix has won what seems like an enormous $18 million"
Meaning that it was competitivly bid by mulitple firms.
Not that I agree with it, but the price tag really can't be disputed if multiple people submit a bid and they select the lowest one. Instead, we should be criticizing the scope of work put forward by the government to revise the website. Though I think its high, and I think they probably went a bit overboard with the requests they made for the website, I think alot of you have a mis-conception about how involved development of a website of this nature is.
Imagine how many lines of information have to be entered in order to track every single stimulas project. I am sure this firm also has the duty of maintaining the site and completely massive amounts of data management.
This is how it works when you do a big website. 1st build - see how it works, 2nd build - make it work better, 3rd, 4th, 5th build... wash, rinse, repeat.
My company does MUCH smaller ones and the first build usually stays up about 6 months.
Not if you are thinking ahead, which you would want to do with a governmental site that will get a lot of traffic and inquiries.
In addition, subsequent revisions technically should not encompass a system-wide and complete website re-design - if it does, you know for sure somebody screwed up in the initial design model.
Revisions should be for tweaking system response, correcting inadequate functions that are not meeting the needs of the client and perhaps including additional reporting and archival functionality.
Based on the requirements they listed for the re-tooled system, Oracle or DB2 would fit the bill. Maybe I'll apply.
In addition, subsequent revisions technically should not encompass a system-wide and complete website re-design - if it does, you know for sure somebody screwed up in the initial design model.
Yeah, for sure.
Or the client changes their mind.
Or technology changes, prompting a redo.
But 100%, its somebody screwing up, lol.
Awesome logic there.
Not if you are thinking ahead, which you would want to do with a governmental site that will get a lot of traffic and inquiries.
In addition, subsequent revisions technically should not encompass a system-wide and complete website re-design - if it does, you know for sure somebody screwed up in the initial design model.
Revisions should be for tweaking system response, correcting inadequate functions that are not meeting the needs of the client and perhaps including additional reporting and archival functionality.
Based on the requirements they listed for the re-tooled system, Oracle or DB2 would fit the bill. Maybe I'll apply.
I'm going to leave it at this - you obviously have never worked in actual web design with a live site. And no, you wouldn't use Oracle OR DB2 for this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
