Re: after Lockheed and Northrop Grumman won the 17-year "partnership"
Ah, I see you don't deal with tenders often then.
It generally works like this....
Stupid, flawed tender is created. It'll be stupidly detailed in some areas, normally the areas where flexibility and choice would be useful, and often demand things that are not practical, cost a fortune or absolutely don't make sense. Then in the areas where some detail would REALLY help define what it is you're actually supposed to be doing, it'll be incredibly vague.
Tender is sent out, with limited way to change this, various questions are raised, unhelpful answers are received (such as "please quote as per the tender"), or further incomplete or conflicting answers are given.
Tender is won by whomever (normally the lowest bidder, or the company they really wanted to do it based on making sure they meet whatever criteria were set).
Tender is then largely thrown away and ignored, and a million change controls, specification changes and alterations ensue. The winning party gets to revise quotes a million times and change prices, the original party wanting the work done repeat the vague/pointless/detailed cycle, and so on and so forth.
Some time later something not resembling the original tender is produced, does not work because of all the aforementioned issues, and when a problem arises the winning party can point to the string of change controls and the audit trail as "you changed the specification" as the answer to all questions on timescale, functionality and so on, and anything where "the specification was wrong" arises will be dealt with by further change control and greasing of palms.
It's a slow, inefficient model, doesn't provide anyone with value for money (except perhaps the party winning the tender) and is so badly flawed it is unreal, but the winning parties keep winning with the current setup, and those who are tendering know it's shite but equally can tick all the compliance boxes required.
Missing from that overview are many pointless meetings and conference calls, none of which answer any actual issues, but cause further problems, and a whole heap of other red tape and nonsense that serves nobody well.