I'm not an expert but from my friends in the industry (including multiple at Lockheed and Boeing), it's definitely not a story about how good and efficient the private sector is. Boeing especially sounds like it's been a real mess with a lot of project management issues.
I’m currently watching an 8-figure park remodeling project happening near home. Instead of hiring one or two competent construction managers for a few hundred thousand dollars, the city seems to be spending several million dollars for outside management to oversee this one project. (Never mind how much they’re overpaying for the actual construction.)
This would help at all levels.
It's very difficult as a government employee to properly supervise contractors when you have little idea what those contractors are actually doing.
But it's hard to gain that experience when you don't actually ever do those things yourself either.
Empower competent people and the government can still succeed, even today. The issue is that everything seem stacked against the idea of either retaining competence or empowering those who are competent to do their work.
Aside from the very real attempts by people to defang the government by offloading all of its functions to the private sector, government is also undermined by an entirely different coterie of idealist, who believe that all the government needs is more process and coordination.
It's very hard indeed to retain competent personnel when they're needlessly mired in non-value-added process steps that are there simply to provide CYA box-checking.
As for this one:
>I’m currently watching an 8-figure park remodeling project happening near home. Instead of hiring one or two competent construction managers for a few hundred thousand dollars, the city seems to be spending several million dollars for outside management to oversee this one project.
Every time the government touches any money, there is an opportunity for corruption. I'm betting that there are kickbacks, nepotism, or some other bullshit involved in the case you mention here. There are countless fraud schemes. California is trying to pass a law against people like Nick Shirley investigating and reporting on widespread fraud, because they know where their bread is buttered.
Are there any real examples of a government entity in the US competing with a private enterprise in which it genuinely would have been better for the government entity not to compete? I’m thinking of various public utility projects in CA (these are mostly great and more cities should do it), roads (I’ve never heard of a private road operating complaining about a public road), military (contractors complain when the military fixes their own gear, and this is asinine), the military doing some of its own research as you can read about in books like Ignition.
> there is an opportunity for corruption
It could just be incompetence. I read the construction contract. If I were a contractor, I would not have agreed to the fixed price and the steep late completion penalties without charging two arms and a leg and quoting a very long timeframe.
Probably everything the government touches outside of keeping the peace and helping businesses function. Government schools suck. Government insurance sucks. Law enforcement often leaves a lot to be desired. I think one could make an argument that we'd be better off with a toll road system too, but for the convenience and privacy of not having to pay tolls.
It's easier to argue for government management when a service involves practically monopolizing space, such as a road, or if the project is especially dangerous or expensive (such as utilities or the military). But the fundamental forces of competition are still beneficial even in huge and monolithic projects. Even in cases of projects commonly run by governments, the competition emerges as being between governments instead of being between companies.
>contractors complain when the military fixes their own gear, and this is asinine
I agree, it sucks. I am very pro-market but I think the government should lay down the law in these cases and say that it won't tolerate abusive prices and it demands all the technical data necessary for routine maintenance, if not the entire product.
>It could just be incompetence. I read the construction contract. If I were a contractor, I would not have agreed to the fixed price and the steep late completion penalties without charging two arms and a leg and quoting a very long timeframe.
If credible businesses are putting in lower bids and they get passed up for a stupidly expensive alternative, that reeks of corruption. But there could be requirements or assurances that we don't know about. That's up to you to find out if you are interested in that case.