Right, they did outsource it. There are undoubtedly lots of problems. Dumb (or at least unrealistic) regulations interfering with the contractor selection process. Poor criteria for choosing a contractor. Inept oversight of the process. Apparently non-technical and/or inexperienced managers on both the government and contractor side. A clusterfsck.
I really only have two "contrarian" things to say about it. First, many large companies are equally inept in developing software and/or managing contractors to do so. I have personally witnessed a few earlier in my career. The point is that it isn't "government" per se. It's lack of accountability and lack of market dynamics that would drive more effective people into those roles in the government. (to be fair, maybe those people are great and there are mitigating circumstances none of us are aware of.)
Second, unless one is an utter anarchist, we have to accept that the government will and should be at the center of many important societal functions. We can argue about which ones, but it's non-zero. So, the government ought to become great
at software, throughout, so that they can serve taxpayers not only more cost-effectively (like, 1000x more cost-effectively), but just make government interactions more effective – pleasant, even – in general.