ORAC, I understand what you are saying. But the USAF made many requirements that had to be achieved in a specified manner when the manner specified was quite frankly stupid (and many of these were only listed as 'top level' at the RFP level). When we saw the specifics, we tried to point out that there were much better (and cheaper) ways to meet their requirements than what they'd specified. Rational people would at least discuss the options - but the USAF wouldn't.
One example - the RFP specified '10 minute takeoff' - so we assumed that was the same as the 10 minute takeoff capability currently available. Well, in the commercial world, 10 minute takeoff is only allowed if you lose an engine - come to find out, USAF wanted to be able to use it every single takeoff. Well, that's not the way the engine was certified - since engine failures during takeoff are rare, the engine cert basis assumes the use of 10 minute takeoff would be similarly rare. USAF says we need 10 minute takeoff for hostile areas where we need to get out of man pad range ASAP. OK, gives us a percentage of takeoffs where you'll need 10 minute takeoff and we'll see if that's consistent the cert basis. USAF responses NO, it's mandatory that we be able to use 10 minute takeoff 100% of the time. Recertifying the engine is a massive task - several million dollars, so we started looking at aircraft performance - with both engines operating, - unless you're at or very close to MTOW, you'll climb out of the takeoff rating envelop well before 10 minutes. Further, even at MTOW, 10 minute got you less than 100 feet extra altitude at the 10 minute mark. Again, we tried to explain this to the USAF, but again ' what part of mandatory don't you understand. Even the FAA will at least listen if you think they are being unreasonable - but not the USAF...
Of course, none of this was in the RFP - only the final contract.