Letter to the editor
This is in response to both "Why the cheap shots at NMCI?" and "Where is NMCI evidence?"
The letters to the editor posted Feb. 26 and Feb. 27 are both trying
to show their points; however, with the political overlays of the Navy Marine
Corps Intranet contract, it is hard to do.
Luckily, most sites in the assumption-of-responsibility (AOR) stage
have not been losing personnel monthly, so there is some stability. After
more than a year of being in AOR, they have nothing to show for it. Commands
are still using outdated equipment that is slowly (in some cases, quickly)
breaking or unable to meet the mission requirements. EDS will not upgrade
this equipment until cutover or until it breaks.
Trying to figure out the true cost of NMCI cannot be done until after
cutover of all Navy sites. Remember that the Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA) is involved, so the Navy is required to pay that bill in addition
to the other services.
The author of the Feb. 26 letter used the lowest-end seat for the standard
and although there will be some of those seats used, I believe the majority
of seats ordered will be of the Red ($2,958.12 yearly), White ($2,863.68
yearly) and Portable ($3,699 yearly) variety.
There also are a large number of bonuses to be given for performance
(about $500 per seat). Then after looking at the Gold disk contents, what
other software will the buyer require to complete his/her job? All that
you really receive under the contract is basic Microsoft Corp. Office products.
As for the political side of this contract, EDS has a person on the
payroll whose function is dealing with Congress. Navy people have been counseled
for speaking out and not supporting the program the way they should be.
Senior management, because of their positions, are required to support this
program to the public.
Is the Navy getting something good under this contract? I feel that
yes, it is — just not fast enough and for too much of a cost. Because of
the way the Navy has run information technology over the years, we have
too many different systems out in the fleet.
Now, the buyer of the NMCI service will receive a semi-modern system
(if you do you math, you can see that the systems EDS is providing are way
below the state-of-the-shelf). I never purchase the latest technology for
my home use, but my computer at home has more power than what is being offered
by EDS.
Maybe the writer of the Feb. 27 letter is correct; people should get
out and talk to the workers affected by this action. That way you can truthfully
and actually report how NMCI is going, not what the people who have to support
the program are saying. It may even show that this NMCI thing is good. Remember,
we are more than 390 days into this program.
Regarding the Navy's entire legacy application problem, is there a listing
of sites under AOR that if all the legacy applications were ready, then
EDS would be ready also? I know of none. EDS wants it answers now; the
Navy may get theirs sometime.
Based on the 60,000 seats that should have been AOR'd, EDS is making
more than $10 million monthly to pay the bills with. What is the Navy really
getting?
Name withheld by request