The problem is that people feel 'ownership' over code and don't like it when people go into the code and change things. They feel the answer is correct and that increased precision and speed don't really matter. They don't want to 'waste' time on it. They would rather take 30 minutes to argue with you and 30 minutes to argue against the idea to management than take the 20 minutes it would take to make the code more accurate and faster.
Due to the setup at Beale it would take me hours to make 10 minutes worth of unclassified changes. I must therefore get the owners of the code to fix it themselves.
Why? Why is the code bad? Poor understanding C++? Lack of experience programming? Lack of experience in OO or software design of any kind? Lack of pride in their work? Lack of sufficient peer review? Peer review by peer which also have the same problems? Peer review by stupid people which force the developer to break otherwise perfect code?
I would love to be given a week and an STR to go through the entire system and fix stupid mistakes people have made.