The existence of a positive net result is not sufficient justification for a poor, inefficient, or wasteful process that led to that result.
That is the heart of our confusion here. You are comparing it to a neutral state. Yes, a utilitarian would prefer any positive outcome to that. However, I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result but through inefficiency we were left with a lesser but still positive result. That waste of resources like time and money is equivalent to a waste of utility that a utilitarian would obviously oppose.
Ah, the old "I intended the exact opposite of what I said" ploy.