[tshaddox]

> The problem is the process of going for the lowest bidder, or one of the lowest.

The phrase "lowest bidder" gets a lot of mileage in jokes and social commentary, but I'm pretty sure that the original idea is "the lowest bidder who fulfills the requirements of the contract." In that context it's a pretty obvious process, not something to be feared or mocked. The contract should be "build X to exactly these specifications," and of course the contract should be given to the lowest bidder who can reasonably be expected to fulfill the contract.

In this case, the contractor is clearly unable (or unwilling, or unincentivized) to fulfill the contract, and thus the contractor's bid should be irrelevant. The contractor should not even be considered. After all, if it's fine to not fulfill the terms of the contract, then I'm confident I could submit an even lower bid.