Many of these mergers lately seem to be driven by contract books and support structures for future bids. If you lose a contract, buy the company that won, and now you only need one business development group which saves you a bunch of money. Consolidate where you can, call it a win, and now you have a bit more money and less competition for the next contract. (I have no idea if this is the reason for this merger)
While you might not end up closing off entire regions, if both companies have offices in, say, Dayton ohio servicing Wright-Patt you can reduce to one and not worry about spare capacity anymore. That can save a lot - especially when bases are super remote.
You see this a lot with mid-range providers when interest rates are low and coming up with X Billion is no problem. I don’t know that it ends up providing better service to government - I would bet the answer there is absolutely no, especially as they recoup costs from the acquisition and squeeze staff. Win for the execs though.
While you might not end up closing off entire regions, if both companies have offices in, say, Dayton ohio servicing Wright-Patt you can reduce to one and not worry about spare capacity anymore. That can save a lot - especially when bases are super remote.
You see this a lot with mid-range providers when interest rates are low and coming up with X Billion is no problem. I don’t know that it ends up providing better service to government - I would bet the answer there is absolutely no, especially as they recoup costs from the acquisition and squeeze staff. Win for the execs though.