I assume you're joking about this. How can it be corrupt if the contract is awarded based on "pragmatic" government policy instead of bribes paid to individuals?
Anyone who thinks this kind of arrangement is a good idea should ask yourselves if you'd be comfortable with a similar arrangement involving: (1) a Democratic president, and (2) a company like Pfizer instead of Intel.
If the product was considered strategic and critical to National Security and an emergency, maybe like another one of those Wuhan Coup Flu events, they’d probably use the Defense Production Act with Pfizer.
But maybe when we get around to the investigation of the Wuhan Coup Flu, Pfizer may be in big trouble.
We’re still at the ‘They spied on my campaign ‘ phase and the ‘Russia Russia Russia hoax’ phase.
Wuhan Coup Flu and folks like Pfizer is in the future.
Government contracts are subject to review. There are factors other than $ such as quality, dependability or on time performance. If there were a Government directive to buy from Intel rather than an equivalent vendor there would have to be justification or the awarder would be subject to review and discipline.
Government contracts are a very dirty business, as I well know. GVT pays through the nose because of ridiculous requirements of paperwork and regulations on materials used. Some of the regulations are impossible since specified materials by Country, and age do not exist. A network of procuring companies exist and they double or triple the pricing while certifying that the regulations are met, though the actual manufacturer will not and cannot so certify and for doing the paperwork.
If you are concerned about Intel becoming a monopoly for the Government supply of chips it seems far fetched. The industry is specialized and where a specific chip is being used that will be maintained unless an improved chip is offered. If the GVT needs a special use chip they will work with a vendor to develop it & buy from that vendor.