Instead, companies are incentivized to hire the dirt cheapest labor they can because getting the job done quicker is actively harmful to their business. Then at the end of it all.. there's usually a maintenance contract to be awarded to keep the system upright and operating. The company doing the dev work is going to bid on that and have an apparent advantage (only apparent though... if they don't get it the actual technical people who matter will just go with whoever gets the contract, the contracting company will never actually relocate anyone) and the worse the system looks, the more bug-ridden and unlikely to succeed it is, the larger the maintenance contract will be. Even more incentive to build a ball of shit. Literally at every single turn, doing whatever makes the software worse is what is most profitable in that space. And eventually some news articles like this will get published, people will complain, and someone on the govenrment side of the fence will decide they want to make bringing the system in as a badge of honor in their career - so they will slash all the mandatory requirements the system doesn't yet meet and sign an agreement that whatever half-functional garbage they managed to get was a full completion of the contract. And then the executives of the contracting company go out and celebrate at an expensive bar.
I once worked on the maintenance side of a system that had just been delivered. The original contract that had been granted was a single contract to develop 3 systems. 3 contracts later, 1 system was delivered. And that system required 9 months of full-time development work to be ready to be used operationally. You know what that's called? An unfettered stellar monumental magnificent success... as far as the contracting company is concerned.