That's not "unbelievable" and doesn't "make your eyes bleed" unless you've never looked at the source of a webpage before.<p>The first file is a couple open source libraries the site's using concatenated together, probably automatically by a good deployment process. It's nothing but Twitter Bootstrap, jQuery, a few jQuery plugins, a JSON parser and a couple arrays. Other than extraneous whitespace, there's nothing that needs improvement in there. The warnings you're pointing out aren't in code written for this site; they're in the jQuery carousel plugin.<p>That second file is well-formatted, well-structured and human readable HTML and jQuery doing some very basic DOM manipulation, and each block of JS code appears near the part of the document it manipulates. The front-end code is easily better than 99% of what you get from contracted-out work in government or elsewhere. In fact, the markup, class names and JavaScript read just like many modern startups' sites.<p>I don't think you looked at any of the code you purport to be criticizing. I also don't think you realize that the front-end website you're trying to poke at isn't part of the same code base as the troubled and over-budget marketplace application. The front-end site was built by a small 12-person startup, Development Seed, with modern methodology, tools and libraries, openly on Github, and is really not much more than a well-designed static brochure site. They worked out of a garage and finished in less than 4 months.<p>The code others are speculating about is the backend enterprise application, written by an entirely different company, CGI Federal, that runs the marketplace portion of the site. We don't have access to that code.