>From what I saw, government contracting requires all requirements up front. Strictly speaking the government has loads of flexibility at defining exactly what

>From what I saw, government contracting requires all requirements up front. Strictly speaking the government has loads of flexibility at defining exactly what form contracts should take. It's just that in reality, most people who decide on the form of government contracts rarely have the skills required to imagine doing things better. Furthermore they have very little incentive to do so. So the least risky and the simplest option is to "do what didn't work last time". After all, everyone involved (on the government side) will continue receiving paychecks no matter what, so why bother? Also, if you think about it - if you are a median government worker who lacks the skills required to actually perform the task for which you are writing/monitoring the contract - what is the probability that you will do a good job getting results on the taxpayer money you are spending? In the big picture, the taxpayers must employ the most skilled and talented people available to imagine/design/oversee technical solutions acquired by the government if they want any to see value delivered for outgoing tax dollars. This constraint is completely incompatible with the existing civil service personnel policies.