No, I was responding to a specific complaint made upthread.
> Your plan sounds like an amazing way to create a tremendous amount of safety risk, shoddy work, or a project that runs forever
Do you have any basis for this? The change-over requirement for midstream cost adjustments (above a threshold) works well enough for e.g. aerospace subcontractors. It adds delays in the short-term but promotes better behavior in the long.
A delay in this project is a safety risk. They are trying to have a working spillway by Nov 1, so if unexpected rains cause another extreme inrush into the lake they can handle it by releasing >100,000 cfs from the spillway. Without that ability, they are risking failure of the emergency spillway and the flooding[1][2] of a large part of the central valley.
For this type of work, the best process would avoid appointing a single contractor. Unfortunately, that would also require more expertise in the public officials allocating work, a concentration we find politically toxic in America.
You really believe the main issue is "getting the old equipment out" and "the new equipment in"?
Your plan sounds like an amazing way to create a tremendous amount of safety risk, shoddy work, or a project that runs forever.