What you measure
This is a major problem with MBAs and short-sighted management.
You only improve what you measure, and up to the point you've checked the boxes.
As history shows, management will most often stop short of "100%" - because that usually isn't the best ROI.
That's not top shelf at all.
For that kind of money and effort, we ALL deserve more - a lot more. Especially since this was the highest priced option, exceeding the cost of the Russians, and of Spacex.
I don't want a partner who just checks the boxes - that's divorce time.
Some vision, some desire to excel, to do the best possible, was expected. Not some kind of "this is just my job and I forget about it when I clock out" attitude. The CYA performance didn't help, it made it look even worse. It made Boeing's priorities clear, and they weren't 'shooting for the moon' at all.
You only miss things like that if you weren't paying attention, which is always, or nearly, because you didn't care enough. Or even make it possible to pay attention easily. That video stream, lacking onboard anything at all, no onscreen telemetry, and once landed - horrible comms, obvious confusion, lots of people but no obvious direction for most of them - it all looked quite amateur even compared to the new kids on the block. Maybe they missed it due to lack of getting the most basic stuff right....
If my vote counted...I'd say drop this contractor, they've proved, and this isn't the first time, that they're not worthy. There's no competition when there's no failure possible. And in Boeing's eyes, the only possible failure is not getting paid again and again, which they've ensured politically, instead of via actual competence. That needs to end, here and elsewhere.
I'll just leave that rant tag open for everyone...