Both
@bobthebuilder &
@stacker1 are correct.
DIO contracts are very badly written, often including meaningless layers of admin and paperwork, even more often not properly describing what is needed by the end user.
Equally, the major outsourcing companies cut their margins to the bone in order to get the contract in a competitive tendering situation enforced by DIO. The only way to make any sensible profit is then to price gouge and to pick on any holes in the contract to make extra money on variations.
We can all cite cases where DIO contracts have had ridiculous holes in facilities management contracts.
Example:
Recent proposal to do work for DIO took almost £500 worth of time to generate the quote for a £6,000 job. DIO sit on the proposal for 9 months, during which costs (travel, accommodation etc) have gone up by nearly 5% (over end of FY) plus DIO have now changed the scope of the job requiring another £300 worth of time to modify the proposal and re-cost the job.
I'm now in the position where costs are spiralling due to DIO changing the scope of work and we're about to go across another year end (18/19) where costs will go up again (annual cost increases).
My £6,000 job is now nearly £9,000 due to mission creep from DIO plus additional time in re-writing the proposal plus annual cost increases.
The mission creep is due to a certain AE deciding that he wants updated design data to cover equipment that has been in place since 1990!