71660.412@CompuServe.COM (Eric C Aker) (05/20/91)
If I worked for a DoD contractor (which I don't) and that contractor had a DoD contract (which it doesn't) to do software development (which it doesn't)... enough disclaimers..... If the hypothetical contractor got a waiver to do the development work in C and not Ada, even though there is a validated compiler available, and the waiver was gotten on honest but not totally honest terms then what can I do. The evidence for the hypothetical waiver was honest and correct but ever so slightly skewed. What are the repercussions possible to the company, i.e. could the government review the waiver and changed its mind if the original evidence had a minor (or major) defect? Is there a government office where the hypothetical company could be reported to for examination of violation of the Ada mandate? Disclaimer. Only a hypothetical case as there is no DoD contractor that I know of that would even for one minute think of trying to avoid the Ada mandate by getting a waiver for anything other than a very valid reason. How does a person not get fired after making a claim against such a hypothetical company doing such a hypothetical thing?
jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) (05/23/91)
>If the hypothetical contractor got a waiver to do the development work >in C and not Ada, even though there is a validated compiler available, >and the waiver was gotten on honest but not totally honest terms then >what can I do. "honest but not totally honest" is an oxymoron. Either it was a lie or it wasn't. >The evidence for the hypothetical waiver was honest and correct but >ever so slightly skewed. What are the repercussions possible to the >company, i.e. could the government review the waiver and changed its >mind if the original evidence had a minor (or major) defect? Well, let's see. There's fraud. There's violation of the Ada mandate (which is now not just policy, but also the law [use C, go to prison ;-)]). There's the possibility of sanctions. There's all KINDS of stuff that could befall this hypothetical company. >Is there a government office where the hypothetical company could be >reported to for examination of violation of the Ada mandate? The AJPO would probably be interested. There's also the folks that grant the waivers in the first place. There's the GAO. >Only a hypothetical case as there is no DoD contractor that I know of >that would even for one minute think of trying to avoid the Ada mandate >by getting a waiver for anything other than a very valid reason. Of course not. Perish the thought. >How does a person not get fired after making a claim against such a >hypothetical company doing such a hypothetical thing? By filing all such complaints anonymously. Also, if you TRUST the State to do the right thing, there is supposedly a Whistleblower's protection act of some sort that not only provides immunity from firing, but provides rewards to the whistleblower and penalties to the company. There's even an 800 number, I believe. On the other hand, if it were me I'd forgo the reward and file anonymously, unless I already had another job lined up. -- **************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 **************** *Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects* *of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/* *reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. *
spray@convex.com (Rob Spray) (05/23/91)
In <1991May23.015604.6260@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >the company. There's even an 800 number, I believe. On the other Defense Hotline; 800/424-9098 --Rob Spray --spray@convex.com
hlavaty@CRVAX.Sri.Com (05/23/91)
In article <"910520033903.71660.412.CHE77-1"@CompuServe.COM>, 71660.412@CompuServe.COM (Eric C Aker) writes... > >If the hypothetical contractor got a waiver to do the development work >in C and not Ada, even though there is a validated compiler available, >and the waiver was gotten on honest but not totally honest terms then >what can I do. > >The evidence for the hypothetical waiver was honest and correct but >ever so slightly skewed. What are the repercussions possible to the >company, i.e. could the government review the waiver and changed its >mind if the original evidence had a minor (or major) defect? > I'm going to guess and say that there was some "engineering interpretation" done in favor of using C that you feel left out some important facts. Contrary to the other reponses here, there isn't a whole lot the customer can (or will) do here. Once the contract has been selected, the effort required to prosecute something like this usually isn't worth it. Only when the DOD decides to make an example of you will find real trouble. Do I condone this behavior? Certainly not, and neither should you. You should answer to a higher being than your company (namely, yourself and God, if you believe in him). If what is happening isn't right in your opinion than you should take action. Do you have any occassion to talk to customer representatives? If so, that's your answer. Pick one you think is a reasonable person and privately communicate to the person what your view of the situation is. Explicitly state that for job reasons you would prefer not to be associated with this publicly. Furthermore, give him/her the right questions to ask at the next status meeting. Viola! Some smart customer rep just caught your company with their pants down - and you smirk in the shadows. If you think this sounds to much like spy stuff, let me assure you it happens all the time (I worked for 6.5 years as a customer rep). One of my top priorities was always finding people like yourself who spoke their mind for what they thought was right regardless of the companies profit motive (i.e. corporate greed). Once you have a "friend" as a customer rep, sometimes they can even help out your cause (say, program manager, I heard that section y doesn't have enough computers to meet their computing needs. What are we doing to solve that?) If you can't meet with a customer rep (or you don't trust them), you may run into problems with the fraud number if it's a close call. Unfortunately, phoney fraud is just as serious (for you) as real fraud (for them). If you think the decision was very close either way (sounds from your description that this may be the case), I would be hesitant to involve the "heavies" (DOD fraud hotline, GAO, etc...). Jim Hlavaty My opinions are my own.
willett@cbnewsl.att.com (david.c.willett) (05/25/91)
In article <"910520033903.71660.412.CHE77-1"@CompuServe.COM>, 71660.412@CompuServe.COM (Eric C Aker) writes: > If I worked for a DoD contractor (which I don't) and that contractor > had a DoD contract (which it doesn't) to do software development (which > it doesn't)... enough disclaimers..... > > If the hypothetical contractor got a waiver to do the development work > in C and not Ada, even though there is a validated compiler available, > and the waiver was gotten on honest but not totally honest terms then > what can I do. > [Intermediate extraneous details deleted] > Disclaimer. > Only a hypothetical case as there is no DoD contractor that I know of > that would even for one minute think of trying to avoid the Ada mandate > by getting a waiver for anything other than a very valid reason. > > How does a person not get fired after making a claim against such a > hypothetical company doing such a hypothetical thing? > > > Forgive me, but this post remindes me of the person who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says, "You see doctor, I have this friend ...". But on to the points you raised. The question is interesting but impossible (for me) to answer because you don't include enough information. Did you prepare the application for the waiver? Do you know that the contractor misrepresented the facts? My own opinion is that if you have no *direct* knowledge of misrepresentation, you should do nothing. If you have a good faith belief that the contractor is evading the law with malicious intent, you should blow the whistle to the enforcment branch of the agency/service letting the contract. Such people would be folk like the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) or the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), etc. If all else fails, I would call the FBI. Now for my disclaimer: These are my own opinions and in no way reflect those of my employer or anyone else. I am not a lawyer, just a humble software engineer. David C. Willett AT&T Federal Systems
khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May24.183140.6351@cbnewsl.att.com> willett@cbnewsl.att.com (david.c.willett) writes: > Only a hypothetical case as there is no DoD contractor that I know of... Forgive me, but this post remindes me of the person who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says, "You see doctor, I have this friend ...". I find it odd that no one believes that people consider hypothetical moral/ethics questions. We talk about hypothetical language extensions, hardware designs, marketing plans, government projects .... why not ethical questions ? It used to be an important part of ones education. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043