Having a scoring system that takes in to account how many previous govt projects have gone over budget and over time would help. Yes, small company X might not have a track record, and might end up folding in 2 years (especially if they can't get decent sized contracts to stay in business), but is that necessarily any worse than bigcoXYZ getting contract, then taking 3 years longer than proposed and going 400% over budget?
Look at the track record of the company, and use that in factoring in contract awards. Companies that routinely go over budget and over time should be penalized by having a reduced chance of getting contracts in the first place. That's one thing that would help level the playing field a bit.
Of course, what would happen is those larger companies would create related spin-offs that are technically not related, and they'd have 'fresh' stats to compete with, and the cycle would start over again, probably.
Look at the track record of the company, and use that in factoring in contract awards. Companies that routinely go over budget and over time should be penalized by having a reduced chance of getting contracts in the first place. That's one thing that would help level the playing field a bit.
Of course, what would happen is those larger companies would create related spin-offs that are technically not related, and they'd have 'fresh' stats to compete with, and the cycle would start over again, probably.