In a way yes. A typical government project comes about by putting a team together for that project. It may be outsourced to a vendor, vendors bought in as staff aug, or done in house with existing IT resources. Or bought but that doesn't happen that often.
Now, since they're doing it as cheap as possible, maintenance is almost never factored in except on the biggest projects. The rest they just expect you to suck up with existing resources. And it's a one-off app so maintenance is as needed. Basically, once it's released (or the final release is put out considering a lot is done in iterrations) it's a dead system except when a bug is found. That accounts for the way a lot, but not all, government software is done. Which means, as opposed to a commercial package where a bug found by one customer and fixed by a support team can fix a bug for a 1000 customers, you're in your own fiefdom. Of course that hurts things. When you go to agency to agency, even within a single state or county, everything is done differently, looks differently, named differently. There are no true standards.
That said, almost every big consolidation effort in IT I've seen has failed miserably. Because by law/degree/legislation every single entity of government is so different and has such different rules to follow. Government is BIG. You're talking hundreds of thousands projects and developers and standardizing that is hard. It's a lot easier for Coke-a-Cola to standardize IT then it for all the soft drink makers to standardize IT practices. And government is like the latter x1000. And again, Coke-a-Cola's only going to do something that makes sense from a business standpoint and has a tangible ROI so they do it right to get that ROI (just an example, Coke IT might suck for all I know). Where as the government stuff almost never has an ROI, it's done because it's required to be done and isn't budgeted to be done, just required. With no ROI it's always just a "get it done" attitude. And a lot of stuff is done to make a politician happy so even though he has no idea what really should be done he has final say because he's going to use it to get favors with other politicians or to make a press release and use it for future votes.