JFZ90
My point is that people refused to deliver airworthiness despite it being an endorsed requirement, and this was specifically condoned, in their case, by the 2 and 4 Stars. I don't think I was wrong using the word "optional" because this is precisely how they approached it.
The initial contract (in this example - there are others but this is the one I can talk about because I have the info officially) was barely adequate. It clearly said "integrate the systems". This was attempted but failed miserably, as reported by Boscombe. The people in question had a choice - make the aircraft safe or pay off the contract and walk away. They chose the latter option. I didn't think they should have been permitted that option, but CDP disagreed. Hence, to my mind, he ruled achieving airworthiness was optional, to those individuals.
I also think the company morally bankrupt (a legal person will tell me if they committed fraud) because they knew they had done wrong (the Boscombe report was the most damning I've ever seen) and compounded this by gleefully quoting the aircraft office (even more) to make the same mistakes again.
When the correct companies were properly contracted they did the job effortlessly for a fraction of the price. And I really do mean a fraction.
Who was wrong?