I read their comment more as saying that building a better construction company wouldn't fix the issue (e.g. they might not get hired), not that it wasn't possible to build a better company.
Elected officials unfortunately don't have that much incentive to hire the "cheapest" company as the debt will be incurred over the next 100 years while they will be long gone.
They probably hire the company that they feel will give them the least amount of trouble, which is the easiest to navigate or that will do something for them in exchange. It's the "not my money" issue at play.