In a similar vein, a well known 'mobile' company was asked to modify a working, existing system to, amongst other things, fit a UK security chip and refused point blank to do so.
When 'taken to task' by the MoD, it was pointed out face to face, that the dozen or so engineers who would mess around with a perfectly good product just for the MoD to buy a few hundred devices, were working on a mobile phone which would net a few hundred thousand units in sales, each with a higher gross and net margin than the units the MoD wanted. So no, it isn't something they wanted to do.
MoD had no answer.
Just as well, as the 'urgent' need for the system went away 12 months later
A lot of the problems come from naivete..... in the definition of requirements, which have become hellishly complicated and frequently contradictory. Also, in my experience, there is a belief that where there are equally valid interpretations of a need, that the MoD have the correct interpretation and the contractors equally valid interpretation is flawed. However no commercial company signs a contract which requires psychic abilities to define anything.
MoD asks the contractor to grow a ton of apples.
The contractor plants the trees, grows the apples and delivers them.
The MoD points out they didn't want Golden Delicious apples but wanted Granny Smiths.
The contractor has to either graft GS onto a GD tree or start again.
The MoD hasn't got a leg (or branch) to stand on, and has to pay up for its poor definition.