Quote from piezoe:
I just now read the article linked to above. I noted that while it contains some information that is undoubtedly correct, it also contains a lot of major misstatements and errors. The chief one being the implication that there were no companies contracted with experience in building complex internet websites. That of course is a ridiculous implication.
I think the Washington Post article is a far more reliable appraisal of the companies chosen to build the ACA website. The Post article points out that the contractors did not receive the final specifications until Spring (Feb?) of 2013 from DHS. The contractors were under a lot of time pressure to roll out something by the deadline. That doesn't excuse the shoddy work, but it does help explain it. Obviously the deadline should have been rolled back a few months to allow more beta testing. Most likely the companies over-promised in their zeal to nail down the contracts.