Let me premise this by saying I'm in no way defending HPE, who I otherwise find to be competent in some areas, and total nitwits in others.
At each stage in the procurement process are opportunities to screw things up. They often start at the needs analysis and systems analysis point that provides motivation for change. People aren't visionary and don't think well for five years down the road. Add in people that are looking for retirement plans, or who are plainly scared to try something new, or go out on a limb, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Then there's a bidding process, vendor qualification, the tender and win (perhaps a lose), and then a vendor is going to try to optimize profitability wherever possible, including using the cheapest labor they can find to meet the minimums of the requirements. You get very few stars, and mostly average people.
And they're all critics in one way or another. Some have a clue, some don't. Everyone can bitch and moan about a job, but few are competent enough to be valid critics of design. Everyone thinks they are, but few really do have the skills.
This said, I wish there were more motivators-- with teeth-- to protect the government's use of funding of projects in general, and IT specifically. Litigation is when everyone loses, despite any settlements. By the time litigation pays off, the problem is well past and now vastly more complex.