[chambers]

Reading this statement, DEFCON's, and Reddit: it looks like the lowest bidder was a hired to do a complicated and costly project that the client historically underfunded (paper badges last year).

If it's true that DEFCON wanted dirt cheap badges produced in record time, then I think the fault lies not in the project's management & execution but in the client's expectations & resourcing. No accomplished vendor would accept such a low price point, so that just leaves the unaccomplished. Vendors who overpromise and underdeliver, who would accept payment in terms of "clout", or who would be too afraid to pushback on crazy or high pressure expectations until it's too late.

A classic set-up-to-fail situation.

[daghamm]

On the contrary, it seems like EE were chosen due to previous experience and close connections with the pi foundation. This is how they got access to the new chip.

For me, this is a clear case of mismanagement and bad communication. DC gave EE the wrong budget (cost for the whole badge instead of the PCB+fw) and then completely ignored the reports they received until it was too late. At which point they decided force EE pay for their mistake instead of man-ing up and accepting at least some responsibility.

Don't forget DC gets 460$ × 30k from ticket sales alone, they should be able to handle this better. And this is not the first time they have screwed suppliers.