I watched a Senate hearing on implementing decided upon innovation through the request for proposals securement of new weaponry.

I've had to refrain from debate once a decision has been made to pursue purchase or take a certain course of action rather than another course of action.  

What then happens is that the competitors whose proposal was turned down (at least in some significant way) then becomes an opponent, tying up the decision course of action in continued debate.

My way of handling that junction where competitors keep up the diatribe is to bring the losers to the "rfp" onto the design team to make changes and alterations of the accepted winner of the contract, so experience and know-how is not turned aside from the accepted proposal's team but becomes a source of improving on what has been adopted for development.  Who knows?--a lot of another's proposal (that wasn't adopted) might become incorporated into what was announced as the "winner!"

You get what I mean?  I'm suggesting that winning a contract through the "rfp" method is just a step in developing an innovation that becomes widely accepted because the input never stops, even by the competitors who didn't get the "rfp" go-ahead.  And there are ways to provide remuneration for their continued effort in the direction given by who won the "rfp."

The idea is to use every ounce of creativity you can get surrounding the event soliciting interest in getting the needed change done--with everybody interested being listened to and contributing (and recognized for their contributions). 

My opinion.