The SSA's ITSSC Recompete - A Prime Example of Unintended Federal Acquisition Malpractice

-

Federal IT procurements are often treated as technical paperwork. In reality, they are long-term strategic decisions. They shape how systems are built, who can compete, how risk is shared, and how innovation shows up in real services.


The Social Security Administration ITSSC recompete is one such decision. This is a ten-year, multi-billion-dollar opportunity. It will shape how SSA designs and operates its technology well into the 2030s.

At this scale, procurement is architecture.

The documents released as RFI do more than ask vendors what they can do. They define who can realistically compete, what solutions are viable, and whether innovation is built into the foundation or added later. That is why the early artifacts matter.

What they reveal is not just poor wording. They point to deeper problems that risk locking old assumptions into the next decade of SSA modernization.

The Request for Information addresses modernization, data, and artificial intelligence, but it does not provide a clear design.

There is no clear enterprise data architecture. The document lists platforms and tools but does not explain how data should flow, where analytics should reside, or how modern AI systems should integrate with legacy systems.

There is no shared modernization target state. Instead of describing where SSA wants to be, the RFI blends past contracts and current operations with future goals. Modernization is defined by outcomes but scoped around legacy infrastructure.

As a result, procurement ends up defining the architecture by committee. Advanced AI use cases appear next to requirements that all new development rely on traditional relational databases. Modern analytics are tied directly to mainframe-style administration.

The outcome is a predictable muddle. Risk is pushed onto vendors. Innovation is treated as an add-on rather than a foundation. AI and analytics are layered on top of existing systems rather than shaping their design.

This raises a fundamental question that the acquisition does not answer.

Do we really want future AI systems that support disability decisions to be built on the same relational database assumptions that defined earlier generations of SSA systems? With the same for other SSA systems?

Isn't treating AI as just another database workload risk carrying old limits into new mission-critical decisions?

These issues are not unique to SSA. They reflect a broader pattern in federal acquisition. Agencies often speak about modernization while relying on dated procurement language shaped by legacy systems. Senior leadership is more focused on short-term wins, meeting KPI's, and optionality to change.

Modernization does not fail because of a lack of technology. It fails when old assumptions are allowed to define the future. This is why the taxpayer continues to pay billions annually, with little to show for it.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Bottlenecks: Information, Access, and the Fight for Time ACRD 2026 Annual Conference Keynote: Kissimmee, Florida

-
  Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Orlando and the ACRD annual conference! It’s a pleasure to be here with you, and even better to see folks in person. We spend so much time on calls, emails, on screens, and helping others, that we don’t always get the chance to step back, shake hands, connect. You matter. You’re doing the hard work. This conference is your opportunity to lean in and connect with “birds of a feather”, other people doing the same work across this great country of ours. So, I am looking forward to the conversations this week. The ones in the hallway. The ones over coffee. The ones where someone says, “Are you seeing this too?” And the answer is usually, “Yes. Every day.” Now I will admit, when I saw the conference was in the Orlando area, I thought to myself, this might be the only conference where people flew in thinking they were going to Disney, and instead got a deep dive on disability policy, medical records, and administrative law. Not quite Space Mountain....
Read more

The McDonaldization of the Social Security Administration

-
Image
Imagine pulling up to a Social Security field office like it is a McDonald’s drive-thru. You state your problem into a speaker. You hand over your papers to someone trained mostly to take the order. Then your claim disappears into a distant kitchen, where some centralized unit, automated system, or overworked specialist is supposed to make sense of it all. That may sound efficient. It may even sound modern. But for an older person who cannot navigate a phone tree, a disabled claimant who cannot explain their life in a web form, or a rural worker who has paid into this system for forty years and now needs help, it feels like something else. It feels like being moved through a line instead of being served by a government that knows your name, understands your problem, and has the authority to fix it. Let me be clear. I believe in IT modernization. I believe in AI. I believe Social Security needs a serious digital future. Modernization is not the same thing as hollowing out service. AI is...
Read more

Obfuscation Is Not Security

-
Image
  There’s been much ado about sensitive information being shared inappropriately with the public. Reality is more nuanced and troubling. Most federal agencies possess deeply ingrained political instincts that overemphasize secrecy in public statements, rely heavily on “obfuscation” as a low-cost security strategy, and suffer from consistently poor operational security (OpSec). A prime example is the Social Security Administration. On February 26, 2014, then Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin testified before Congress, stating: “Although there is a low level of fraud in our disability programs, no amount of fraud is tolerable.” While well-intentioned, this kind of messaging sets unrealistic expectations for the public. Fraud is a risk in any large-scale system, and every major bank accepts certain loss levels as the cost of doing business. Striving for zero fraud is noble. Pretending it’s achievable without tradeoffs is misleading. As one former CIA Director put it: “If an organizat...
Read more