I also thought my answer was very careful in its assertions. What have I stated as a definite fact and why was this wrong?
I felt it was outrageous to inject a pro-Capitalist treatise with regards to government contracting, which for me fits in two buckets:
1. Government needs some hardware (e.g. radar, missile, aircraft, watercraft). Some preapproved vendors who have already developed relationships and comply with extensive contracting requirements bid on a project. One or more win. Some vendors that win are wildly underqualified and, especially in the realm of IT, make an inferior product at 10x the price. One of the government stakeholders works for that contractor after a few years.
2. Government for political reasons can't hire or pay enough employees, so they pay a consultancy to provide employees for them.
Neither seems like an efficient capitalist action. The first due to its significant barriers to entry that forms oligopoly, and the second because it's just hiding government employment within a contract.
I don't know of a good way to improve #1, but for it to be considered a testament to the efficiency of capitalism is absurd to me.