I'm not defending the guilty parties here, or saying that the situation is anything other than s**t, but...
The tone in the comments here is that outsourcing is always wrong. Often it's a means of the prime contractor doing something more cheaply but, for the sake of balance, I can think of times when outsourcing is legitimately better. In fact I was talking to a friend of mine just the other day about this.
If I'm something services from someone, I'd like to thing that I'm getting the best things possible in return for my money. If there is a specialist subcontractor who can do something better than the prime, then I'd like to see that aspect of the work subcontracted out.
Example - Cosworth make better engines than Ford, so that's why Ford subcontracted engine manufacture to them for some models of Sierra and Escort. (I fear I may be showing my age with this example)
Bottom line. Subcontracting is not inherently bad. Doing it just to cut corners and save money is. Doing it in order to get a better quality specialist product or service is acceptable.