So they should nickel and dime them on scope changes and deliver solutions that meet the requirements but are useless? I know I'm straw manning a bit here but a

So they should nickel and dime them on scope changes and deliver solutions that meet the requirements but are useless? I know I'm straw manning a bit here but asking them to operate like these contractors is highly questionable. Their mission isn't to be cheap and competitive but to change how the government uses technology and make it more agile. To drive culture changes and set standards that allow government agencies to produce solutions that are aligned with their goals. How many failed government IT projects have we read about that fulfilled a contract but was ultimately useless? Or stories about government inefficiencies and a failure to keep pace with modern technology? I don't know why there's an expectation that they do this cheaper or at the same price as government contractors. Have we forgotten what happened with the healthcare.gov site already?