This is why it’s important that governments can shop around and negotiate as well. What the fuck do you mean it costs $78m for Accenture to redesign a website? I’ll gladly do it by myself for half of that.
BoM asked to explain ‘what happened here’ after cost of website redesign revealed to be $96.5m
Submitted 9 hours ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@beehaw.org
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/24/bom-website-redesign-cost-revealed-96-5-m
Comments
TehPers@beehaw.org 5 hours ago
Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 6 hours ago
This should be criminal, somehow.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 hours ago
So 92 MILLION dollars on SQA and maybe some pentesting? Bullshit. Pentests run $50k-$400k for single-domain websites like this, and $400k is on the very expensive end.
Even if you paid 30 people $200k apiece for 4 years to work on this, which is more people and at higher salaries than would have happened, that would still only come to $24m, less than a third of the cited cost.
There is no possible way for this to have legitimately cost this much. There was corruption of some kind involved.
entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 2 hours ago
More likely mismanagement, miscommunication, rewrites, and incompetence than corruption.
All projects of sufficient complexity overrun their cost/time estimates. That’s not even accounting for designers and programmers trying to hit what is likely a moving target.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 hours ago
92 million dollars over cost on a 4.1 million dollar project is not incompetence and mismanagement.
Doubling the cost of a project should have triggered reviews or an audit. 23x’ing the cost of a project is either corruption, or such gross negligence with public funds as to be criminal all on its own.