There is a likelihood of falsified tests despite the fact that the machines were "tested by a third party".
Why? Because “before [a test] gets underway, we might believe the system is on one configuration when it’s not in that configuration.”
So the "third-party" that's responsible for testing this isn't actually auditing that the revised software is running, they're relying on the vendor's configuration and asking them to show them the output.
What could possibly go wrong?
Especially with a deal where the first order was for $90,000,000 worth of these machines? And, the former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's firm is doing "consulting work" that is vehemently written off by the vendor as "unrelated".
Give me a !@%$!@ break, as long as our government is run by fellow humans we can't expect them not to be as self-interested, greedy, and tribally protective as the rest of us.
It's pretty much a standardization of the worst testing/QA techniques ever. I have to imagine that RFP's have to meet this standard (if in fact this wasn't a no-bid contract, which I think it might have been).
There is a likelihood of falsified tests despite the fact that the machines were "tested by a third party".
Why? Because “before [a test] gets underway, we might believe the system is on one configuration when it’s not in that configuration.”
So the "third-party" that's responsible for testing this isn't actually auditing that the revised software is running, they're relying on the vendor's configuration and asking them to show them the output.
What could possibly go wrong?
Especially with a deal where the first order was for $90,000,000 worth of these machines? And, the former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's firm is doing "consulting work" that is vehemently written off by the vendor as "unrelated".
Give me a !@%$!@ break, as long as our government is run by fellow humans we can't expect them not to be as self-interested, greedy, and tribally protective as the rest of us.