ULA is a govt contractor bound to the same competitive rules that all govt contractors must adhere. They don’t get to keep the doors open on taxpayer money if they are not on a contract and delivering a product or service to the govt. So I don’t know what you are implying. Its up to the govt to decide how and when it competes and awards contracts, and what is in the best interest of preserving particular industrial base capabilities that we don’t want to lose. In the case of space access, the govt has been looking to cut costs by finding lower priced alternatives, but that often comes with higher risk or less capability. And since govt admin/bureaucracy turnover is only a few years most of the time, the govt record for knowing how best to allocate the tax dollars is spotty.
“They don’t get to keep the doors open on taxpayer money if they are not on a contract and delivering a product or service to the govt. So I don’t know what you are implying. “
Bzzz, wrong. ULA received money for a “launch capability contract” where they get paid regardless of whether they launch or not.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-looks-at-ending-ulas-launch-capability-payment/
“From 2006 through 2013, the federal government had two different contracts with ULA. These included a “firm-fixed price” award for each individual launch and an annual “launch capability contract” known as the ELC payment, which covered booster assembly at the pad, range fees, and more. ULA received this award on an annual basis, regardless of the amount of rockets it launched, in order to maintain readiness.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/how-americas-two-greatest-rocket-companies-battled-from-the-beginning/
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before drawing false equivalence between ULA and SpaceX. ULA is very keen to keep pushing this false narrative that SpaceX is pork while ULA is just an innocent regular government contractor. It’s backwards and disgusting.