The article answers it's own question. On the website developed for Obamacare:
> The government had spent $400 million over four years - more time than it took the U.S. to enter and win World War II - and yet, the dozens of contractors couldn’t set up a website to take sign-ups.
So the answer to the headline question (and also the broader problem) is: because the government probably can't develop the project successfully in-house.
This is not a particularly American problem. Every few years I read about some super costly government IT disaster here in the Netherlands. I'm sure locals from most other countries will have similar stories to share. So the broader question would be: what makes governments apparently unable to get big IT projects done right? (I'm aware that there is a big selection/reporting bias in the disaster stories.)
According to the article, Booz Allen got a 10 year contract. What would it take, when it expires, for the BLM to develop and run this successfully in-house?
> The government had spent $400 million over four years - more time than it took the U.S. to enter and win World War II - and yet, the dozens of contractors couldn’t set up a website to take sign-ups.
So the answer to the headline question (and also the broader problem) is: because the government probably can't develop the project successfully in-house.
This is not a particularly American problem. Every few years I read about some super costly government IT disaster here in the Netherlands. I'm sure locals from most other countries will have similar stories to share. So the broader question would be: what makes governments apparently unable to get big IT projects done right? (I'm aware that there is a big selection/reporting bias in the disaster stories.)
According to the article, Booz Allen got a 10 year contract. What would it take, when it expires, for the BLM to develop and run this successfully in-house?