[magduf]

If you have to put this much effort into managing contractors and avoiding shysters, at what point does it make more sense to just not use contractors at all, and do it yourself?

This reminds me of when I used to own homes. It was generally easier to just do some home-repair job myself than deal with the hassles of finding a good contractor, and then having to deal with more hassles if the contractor didn't do it right.

[Gibbon1]

I completely understand that dilemma. Outsourcing allows you to tap economies of scale and line up the tasks with contractors experience and capabilities. But you pay for that with another layer of management.

I suspect that there isn't a magic set of incentives that replaces appropriate levels of funding, good faith and sufficient oversight.

[ComradeTaco]

Most large infrastructure projects have a large number of trades for a short amount of time Contractors have people,experience and equipment that would be cost prohibitive to maintain full time but can be relatively inexpensive when hired for just their needed duration.

The kinds of work that you describe fall more under maintenance and basic repair, which most public agencies have full time employees that perform that roles. For instance the NYC subway has signaling workers for a constant stream of signal work, track workers to maintain track and sign workers for endless lifecycle replacement of signs. New construction work, like tunnels and stations is done by contractors.

[kelnos]

If sufficient regulatory oversight is politically infeasible, I would think that the government directly employing construction staff would be politically impossible.