Carillion. How does this change the view of procurement?

We're all seeing the news about Carillion. 

There are a couple of things that really jump out at me in this article from the BBC - looking at it from a procurement/bid perspective

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42687032

"The government constructed the HS2 contracts so that Carillion's joint venture partners would take on the work if the company went bust - meanwhile it hoped the new contracts would be enough to make Carillion's lenders feel reassured."

The whole tender process is meant to be open, fair and transparent. Does the above extract support this? If this is true, I can understand it but I do not agree with it.

Perhaps the next extract might explain why the BBC Business editor, Simon Jack, made that comment.

"...Whitehall tends to do contracts with companies that it always does contracts with, because that's the safe thing to do - that's the perception. A great many small and medium-sized companies feel excluded." (said by Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative chairman of the House of Commons Public Administration Committee).

The Government are driving to engage with more small businesses and the CCS has been making tremendous efforts in to simplifying the tender documents with this in mind. To then say that "Whitehall" will stick with what they know, contradicts the approach to small businesses. It most certainly will not help the view point of the hundreds of small companies wanting to engage with government contracts.

Some people are often suspicious about bidding for contracts, and this news will only fuel their suspicions.

There are a lot of people who will be adversely impacted by what has happened and it's so worrying that it was on the cards. I honestly wish the best to the staff, suppliers and those who have ongoing projects being managed by Carillion.