Government contracting over time acquires more and more rules reacting to scandals which are designed to prevent that, which has the unintended effect that government contracting is so complex that it goes entirely to firms–or organizations within firms–whose core competency is navigating (and manipulating) the result bureaucratic maze, not delivering quality goods and services (not uncommonly, the actual goods and services are subcontracted out), whereas the contract managers on the government side are pretty much fully occupied with the trees of bureaucratic minutiae so as not to be able to see (and generally being sharply limited in what they could do even if they did see) the overall cost/value situation.

I think it's just that government spending, especially in taxpayer facing environments, is under extreme scrutiny.

So you have companies trying to make it look like they're offering the most, but costing the least, and hiding those costs elsewhere (planned obsolescence)