The board's standard hypothesis is the media is lying. We look for evidence that supports or refute's that hypothesis. We do not accept evidence that presupposes an alternative hypothesis in finding a conclusion.
The bridge collapse was a simple accident because the msm says it was an accident is not valid to disprove our hypothesis. There are many other pieces of evidence that could be offered which would do so independent of this assessment.
This is called skepticism.
Remember, many of those 8000 people are scientists, doctors, PhDs, who have legitimate jobs that the government needs to be able to offer a competitive salary to keep employed. Tons of them work at nasa, naval research labs, etc. You can't outsource all technology jobs to contractors or you will have no one in government capable of understanding what you want the contractor to do.
Not defending the SES as a whole–just offering up a qualification for criticizing legitimate vs abuse uses.