For the email example, they said how many servers, how many T1 lines, and how powerful they all had to be. They also wanted usage logs from the T1's for capacity planning. The contractor doesn't have input there.
That's essentially the case with the bolts as well. It's in the specification, the contractor doesn't have the power to say we are going to use these other bolts because they're standard. Items are specified in a specific way for a reason, with bolts, it's because those particular bolts absolutely have to stand up to the rated forces, because they're likely to experience them, with combat and all.
Not really. If you need a bolt that absolutely needs to be able to withstand the rated forces at the specified size and weight, it needs to be non-destructively tested. The expensive part isn't the bolt, it's the testing.
You don't want it to be tested when it's the last bolt left in a redundant pair and it sheers off.
"Why would they say how many t1 lines are need and how many servers? That is silly. What if someone could get the same effect with less power and bandwidth?"
Because they did a needs analysis and calculated the probable amount of bandwidth, and decided that redundancy was necessary as well. This stuff isn't just a guess, it is based on hard data.
The idea was that it costs about $0.35 per piece including design, postage, etc., to send a direct mail advertisement, whereas they could get the entire electronic marketing infrastructure, and pay a fraction of that per-piece. The whole thing was basically a clever pricing structure to get away from direct mail to much cheaper electronic delivery with guaranteed cost savings to the taxpayer because if the system sucked, they just wouldn't use it to send messages. But if it was good, they'd use it instead of the regular marketing materials, saving substantial amounts of money.
Hence why the pricing is higher than it would need to be, because of the risk.