> Then just paying that developer will cost $1000 per box on a 100-box production run; paying a team of three such developers for two years would still cost nea

> Then just paying that developer will cost $1000 per box on a 100-box production run; paying a team of three such developers for two years would still cost nearly $700 per box on a 1000-box production run. That's not correct. Development is a fixed cost -- you don't rewrite all the software and re-design the hardware every time you run a new production run. Furthermore, this isn't even necessary for hardware stuff where production run size actually does affect cost. If the machines are developed in house and you know you'll be using them for the next 15 years across the whole US, you can do a few medium-sized production runs. Which is exactly why federal and state governments should have a permanent bank of software engineers and EEs for routine software projects like this. Then they can do what makes sense for the taxpayers, instead of having to play fiddle to the profit motives of an incompetent money grubbing contracting firm.