Dept of Health and Human Services spends $146 per month per user for email [pdf](gao.gov)
gao.gov
Dept of Health and Human Services spends $146 per month per user for email [pdf]
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661829.pdf
8 comments
Relevant bit (footnote 8 on pg. 4):
HHS told us that HHS pays $146.64 per month per user for e-mail; that this
charge covers connect ivity, storage, and other e-mail services; and that this
charge is independent of the number of e-mails that are sent or received. HHS
also told us that the Office of the Secretary pays $10.44 per month per
telephone line, that this charge covers all featu res associated with the
lines and the phones, and that this charge is independent of the number of
phone calls made per month. Each phone call, whether local or long distance,
is charged at a unit cost of $0.014 per minute.
My first question would be what archival requirements they have for e-mail.
Some governments have legal requirements for incoming official mail - whether on paper or electronic - to be printed off and stamped with the time and date, and manually entered into a journal and archived in multiple copies in separate locations for audit and open access purposes. Others may "just" require an electronic journal, but tend to still have very strict requirements on access, and particular security mechanisms to prevent modification of the journal.
Archival requirements can easily make up the vast majority of cost of processing mail if the rules are complicated enough.
Depending on the extent of "unusual" requirements like that, it may not be that bad. In any case, without more details about exactly what is included it's not very easy to assess whether or not the cost is unreasonable...
Some governments have legal requirements for incoming official mail - whether on paper or electronic - to be printed off and stamped with the time and date, and manually entered into a journal and archived in multiple copies in separate locations for audit and open access purposes. Others may "just" require an electronic journal, but tend to still have very strict requirements on access, and particular security mechanisms to prevent modification of the journal.
Archival requirements can easily make up the vast majority of cost of processing mail if the rules are complicated enough.
Depending on the extent of "unusual" requirements like that, it may not be that bad. In any case, without more details about exactly what is included it's not very easy to assess whether or not the cost is unreasonable...
If I was to guess a little.
-Email Certificate
-Outlook License
-Online Outlook license
-Remote VPN services and remote dialup + support
Which is a big pile of money off the top.
-Help Desk
-Hardware/Cloud storage and what not, probably a small portion.
Let's all just hope that "connectivity" includes internet access and a workstation for that user as a whole?
They probably have specific requirements. They may or may not be worthwhile. They may or may not make sense. But any vendor is going to satisfy those requirements, and charge for knowing, implementing and demonstrating those requirements.
Welcome to the world of government contracting. There is lots of money to be made in this area if you know how/who to talk to, and the red tape to jump through. Lockheed, L3 and Northrop, make a pretty penny, along with many many bottom feeders (some hiding behind a shell companies that fit labels like "disable business veteran" owner or other such preferential categories).
It is a multi-billion dollar world, with its own rules, players, business cycles, customers, marketing and so on. You get to use exciting technologies such as Window Vista (still XP up until not too long ago) and RHEL 4 and 5.
It is a multi-billion dollar world, with its own rules, players, business cycles, customers, marketing and so on. You get to use exciting technologies such as Window Vista (still XP up until not too long ago) and RHEL 4 and 5.
I had a government customer once. And they had another vendor I met which was "owned" by a woman. But the real operator of the business made no bones about the fact the the entire thing was setup in his wife's name solely in order to enable contracting with said government agency.
Yeah, I know a couple that is "owned" by the woman to get government contracts. She basically does light human resources stuff while her husband runs the business.
I don't live in th US so this is not clear to me.
Could you explain why would they do that?
Could you explain why would they do that?
Officially, "to help small businesses build their potential to successfully compete in the federal sector"
but effectively to promote businesses owned by various populations, either historically disadvantaged
(minorities, women) or seen as deserving of promotion (military veterans, disabled veterans).
http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting...
"The Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract program authorizes contracting officers to set aside certain federal contracts for eligible women-owned small businesses."
http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting...
"The Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Federal Contract program authorizes contracting officers to set aside certain federal contracts for eligible women-owned small businesses."
MWBE, "meebeeweebee". Minority-owned / woman-owned business.
They get preferential terms in many government contracts.
http://mwbe.com/cert/certification.htm
They get preferential terms in many government contracts.
http://mwbe.com/cert/certification.htm
There are government contracts that are specifically set aside for women and minorities. Only businesses run by these demographics can bid for these contracts.
The government has certain contract set asides to help various types of companies get contracts. It's basically like affirmative action for contracting (vary broadly speaking). Basically if you have a female/minority/veteran owned company you can sometimes get a leg up in the procurement process. The government also has these things for size of the business and I'm sure many other categories.
Affirmative action requirements.
I'm sure that kind of stuff never happens in the non-governmental world.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "that kind of stuff". Overall, in the non-governmental world, if you deviate too much from rational behaviour you go bankrupt.
Yea, in fact governments are a major customer of Microsoft Custom Support Agreements, not only for XP but also for 2000 and NT4 back in the day. Some of them are even public. The UK government has a government wide Windows XP custom support agreement for example.
The MoD still has an agreement with Microsoft to support windows NT4 in a small list of places until 2025 I understand as well. With enough money anything can live forever (apart from humans - yet).
[deleted]
My first job out of college was at a large investment bank. As a trader, I spent much of my time on the phone. I remember discovering that we paid several hundreds of dollars a month for those lines. The contract was signed in the seventies and nobody had thought to revisit it.
That is a story about how sensible constructs drift apart over time. Splitting costs into line items is difficult and expensive. Sometimes it isn't worth the hassle. If the HHS overpaid for email but underpaid for something else, that is okay for now. Cost-effectiveness should be calculated on the aggregate for complex contracts.
That is a story about how sensible constructs drift apart over time. Splitting costs into line items is difficult and expensive. Sometimes it isn't worth the hassle. If the HHS overpaid for email but underpaid for something else, that is okay for now. Cost-effectiveness should be calculated on the aggregate for complex contracts.
I work for a small Telco.
We charge two state governments ~$10k a month each for ~200 phone lines.
They both pay well over $25k/month for Internet - and it's about 50 5Mbps DSL lines, with capped usage.
This is today.
We charge two state governments ~$10k a month each for ~200 phone lines.
They both pay well over $25k/month for Internet - and it's about 50 5Mbps DSL lines, with capped usage.
This is today.
How are these ridiculous contracts negotiated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
It comes in many flavors and fashions, and is easily recast in a different image.
It comes in many flavors and fashions, and is easily recast in a different image.
Are there any special circumstances with those states?
No competition
Do you think there are any reasons for the lack of competition? Or is it just because?
It's recently been opened up for competition, and those competitors have just been dragging their heels.
I can pretty much guarantee that this is some government contracting company taking advantage of the government's quirks to overcharge. Not some oversight in a contract no one has reviewed in 20 years.
The contract was signed in the seventies and nobody had thought to revisit it.
Or perhaps it hadn't been worthwhile to revisit it?
Or perhaps it hadn't been worthwhile to revisit it?
> Or perhaps it hadn't been worthwhile to revisit it?
With public agencies, big companies, medics and anyone associated with higher salaries comes one thing: consultants and service providers WILL bill you until a normal person's eyes would bleed. Only that in some spheres, a) decisionmakers don't worry about money and b) they don't worry about money even more when you fill them up with tasty buzzwords.
With public agencies, big companies, medics and anyone associated with higher salaries comes one thing: consultants and service providers WILL bill you until a normal person's eyes would bleed. Only that in some spheres, a) decisionmakers don't worry about money and b) they don't worry about money even more when you fill them up with tasty buzzwords.
If you've ever worked for or with the government this isn't shocking news. In fact I also wouldn't be surprised to find that their email is also unreliable.
There just isn't much accountability with these things it's a HUGE problem. I don't know what the solution is.
There just isn't much accountability with these things it's a HUGE problem. I don't know what the solution is.
"I don't know what the solution is."
Not have such a massive federal government that is always spending other people's money?
When people spend their own money, they often find much more efficient use of it.
Not have such a massive federal government that is always spending other people's money?
When people spend their own money, they often find much more efficient use of it.
Yeah, sure, but we all know it is inevitable the government is going to spend some money so as a practical matter just cutting government doesn't really address the problem of making the remaining parts more efficient.
The smaller the government (or any entity) the fewer things look like a "drop in the bucket that's not worth looking at". So reducing the size of government will (I believe) increase the efficiency.
That ignores the fact that their are efficiencies achieved through centralisation that save money as well. It's a complex topic; "make government smaller" isn't a strategy, it's an outcome.
I think you misunderstand the fundamental problem. Even if the Federal government were cut by 50% in terms of $ spent it would still be massive. they wouldn't all of a sudden have an epiphany and realize they were being ripped off by all these beltway bandits. They would just do less stuff in the same inefficient way. You might feel better about it because you would be paying lower taxes but the taxes you are paying would still be spent inefficiently.
That isn't necessarily true. The number of e.g. Senators is set by the constitution. If the government were doing half as much stuff, each Senator would have twice as much time to allocate to each thing. Then they might find more waste to remove and reduce the budget even more.
> If the government were doing half as much stuff, each Senator would have twice as much time to allocate to each thing
I find the assumption that 'How much stuff the government is doing is proportionate to how much time each Senator has to act as a finder and remover of waste' as an assumption based on a normative view of what Senators should be doing in the Senate, rather than what their schedules would reveal.
This image of Senators is questionable, given what Senators actually do as part of their jobs (campaigning, meeting with lobbyists, reviewing poll data with advisors to refine their message and image). In terms of the priorities of politicians keeping their jobs and raising more money, I would estimate they probably have a much higher margin of return by campaigning, meeting with lobbyists, and reviewing poll data with their advisors than they do by going page by page through the federal register and legislation to find waste. Indeed, many if not most bills get passed without even a single Senator reading its contents in entirety.
Some Senators that claim fiscal responsibility as part of their Senatorial passions pay people to do this for them from time to time. But each little bit that has to change has to go through an enormously long process, so it's far easier to just focus on the hot button issue of the day that the party leadership can whip everyone (politicians and lobbyists included) into agreement on. Typically this never results in reduced government waste, but quite the opposite given the nature of the relationship between politicians and industry lobbies.
The problems with any given piece of legislation are clear as day, but given how much skin in the game the interest-groups and lobbyists each have in their own pet bills, there's little chance the current legislative modification apparatus could successfully change 50% of it within decades, even if the accumulation of waste stopped today.
I find the assumption that 'How much stuff the government is doing is proportionate to how much time each Senator has to act as a finder and remover of waste' as an assumption based on a normative view of what Senators should be doing in the Senate, rather than what their schedules would reveal.
This image of Senators is questionable, given what Senators actually do as part of their jobs (campaigning, meeting with lobbyists, reviewing poll data with advisors to refine their message and image). In terms of the priorities of politicians keeping their jobs and raising more money, I would estimate they probably have a much higher margin of return by campaigning, meeting with lobbyists, and reviewing poll data with their advisors than they do by going page by page through the federal register and legislation to find waste. Indeed, many if not most bills get passed without even a single Senator reading its contents in entirety.
Some Senators that claim fiscal responsibility as part of their Senatorial passions pay people to do this for them from time to time. But each little bit that has to change has to go through an enormously long process, so it's far easier to just focus on the hot button issue of the day that the party leadership can whip everyone (politicians and lobbyists included) into agreement on. Typically this never results in reduced government waste, but quite the opposite given the nature of the relationship between politicians and industry lobbies.
The problems with any given piece of legislation are clear as day, but given how much skin in the game the interest-groups and lobbyists each have in their own pet bills, there's little chance the current legislative modification apparatus could successfully change 50% of it within decades, even if the accumulation of waste stopped today.
I'm not sure politicizing IT decisions would make things more efficient. Not to mention that there is strong incentive to increase the amount spent because contractors can then turn around and donate some of those juicy profits to the senator's campaign.
You have it reversed. It is inevitable that government is going to be inefficient, so as a practical matter the lower-hanging fruit is to decrease the magnitude of the waste. Not try to put lipstick on a pig.
Reducing the scope of government spending requires the flick of a pen. Reducing the scope of government inefficiency requires changing human nature.
Reducing the scope of government spending requires the flick of a pen. Reducing the scope of government inefficiency requires changing human nature.
Reducing the scope of government spending without negatively impacting many, many lives is, however, impossible. Whether the net negative effects would be worse remains to be proven.
Well a good first step would be to consolidate the overlapping number of subsidy programs of which there are over twenty two hundred. They even made a nice pie chart for us to see them all https://www.cfda.gov/
Assistance programs and just like taxes, there are so many rules and requirements all because politicians use our money to reward those who do as they are told and those who don't, well there is a rule against supporting them or supporting them not as well.
Assistance programs and just like taxes, there are so many rules and requirements all because politicians use our money to reward those who do as they are told and those who don't, well there is a rule against supporting them or supporting them not as well.
But people are rarely spending their own money: if you cut government, the same work will be done by some random mega-service-corp, with exactly the same waste.
In my experience, waste is a more or less inevitable consequence of large organisations, be they public or private. In both cases, the managers aren't paying out of their own pockets.
In my experience, waste is a more or less inevitable consequence of large organisations, be they public or private. In both cases, the managers aren't paying out of their own pockets.
How about electing people that actually want to make the government better instead of the people that say they want to destroy it.
The biggest solution I could see would be allowing more in-house groups to work on projects without huge stigma if they fail.
The success rate for external/contracted projects isn't actually as high as you'd want, but it's generally more politically acceptable for something like that to fail, plus the contractor absorbs some of the de-risking up front in evaluating the bid.
I'd prefer if government had more in-house projects rather than contracting, on the explicit assumption that some of the projects (even most of them!) would be failures -- I don't see a big problem with duplicated work at the early stages, then internal-to-government competition to find the best solution, then rolling it out.
A side benefit of this would be making GS employment more attractive to great people -- it already pays well, is very stable, has great EoE, etc. If I were a minority/female/etc. engineer, and I wanted a workplace with minimal discrimination, government would be a great place -- historically, it was one of the first major employers of black people in white-collar roles in the 1960s-1980s.
The other key area would be an increase in off-the-shelf products, vs. custom implementations, and focusing on off the shelf systems which are commodity. Government is actually quite efficient at purchasing certain classes of items -- GSA gets good prices for "anything someone in 1940 could explain". It just is bad at "systems", and IT in general.
The success rate for external/contracted projects isn't actually as high as you'd want, but it's generally more politically acceptable for something like that to fail, plus the contractor absorbs some of the de-risking up front in evaluating the bid.
I'd prefer if government had more in-house projects rather than contracting, on the explicit assumption that some of the projects (even most of them!) would be failures -- I don't see a big problem with duplicated work at the early stages, then internal-to-government competition to find the best solution, then rolling it out.
A side benefit of this would be making GS employment more attractive to great people -- it already pays well, is very stable, has great EoE, etc. If I were a minority/female/etc. engineer, and I wanted a workplace with minimal discrimination, government would be a great place -- historically, it was one of the first major employers of black people in white-collar roles in the 1960s-1980s.
The other key area would be an increase in off-the-shelf products, vs. custom implementations, and focusing on off the shelf systems which are commodity. Government is actually quite efficient at purchasing certain classes of items -- GSA gets good prices for "anything someone in 1940 could explain". It just is bad at "systems", and IT in general.
Non-governmental orgs do stupid stuff like this all the time. It's the nature of large organizations.
There's some data on the FY2011 contracts available here
http://www.hhs.gov/grants/servicecontractsfy11.html
CSV (a few mb): http://www.hhs.gov/grants/hhsfy11scinventory-c.csv
http://www.hhs.gov/grants/servicecontractsfy11.html
CSV (a few mb): http://www.hhs.gov/grants/hhsfy11scinventory-c.csv
Looks like "Lockheed Martin Services" might be the company providing their IT. They have 3 contracts with HHS totaling over $200 million described as, "CONSOLIDATED INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT"
http://www.hhs.gov/about/smallbusiness/smallbusiness/pdf/cms...
Edit: It looks like the 200 million is only for IT services for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid so HHS as a whole probably spends even more on IT.
http://www.hhs.gov/about/smallbusiness/smallbusiness/pdf/cms...
Edit: It looks like the 200 million is only for IT services for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid so HHS as a whole probably spends even more on IT.
Hey startups, stop wasting your time on those crazy mashups and 'Yet another XYZ clone with a twist'.
Try getting a Govt contract or two !
Try getting a Govt contract or two !
Any high price for HHS mailboxes is related to the fact that there are several agencies with different rates (NIH, CDC, FDA, ACF, HRSA, etc are all part of the departmental umbrella of HHS) and some likely have different (and not as competitive) rates. My guess is that the rate quoted above is from one of the smaller agencies with a less competitively negotiated rate...but that's only an educated guess because if I knew the exact numbers I wouldn't comment on them publicly.
What's worth noting here though is that HHS is well aware of their costs, and if the procurement documents referenced above are any indication, then they are working to actively address this.