The problem with this isn&#x27;t that the bidder wanted to do something noble, it&#x27;s that it set a precedent that the government is going to expect on future bids moving forward. &quot;Buying a contract&quot; is nothing new - companies do it all the time (i.e. deliberately dramatically underbidding just to get the past performance). However, reverse auctions are a lose-lose for the government and commercial sector. This approach assumes that the only thing that separates vendors is price alone, which is incorrect. For commodities, perhaps it works, but for IT you get what you pay for. Just ask the other numerous agencies backing away from the reverse auction model due to disastrous lowest-bidder contractor performance.<p>I do, however, wholeheartedly embrace the pilot-model approach to IT procurement (i.e. MVP for government). It will help avoid those failure-prone $100M+ acquisitions that are doomed from the start, thus saving taxpayer money and allowing innovators to shine in practice, not through proposals.