Really, you'd, "...rather see 15 small companies that are hungry and motivated than one or two big dinousaur corporations who think they can get away with whatever they want to."
Which you follow with:
"It's my dough! I work hard for it." - And you appear to be only too happy to squander it.
By going the route you seem to prefer, you automatically:
1. Increase the amount of work to be done up front during contract preparation.
2. Increase the amount of work in any pre-qualification process.
3. Increase, dramatically, the amount of work associated with bid evaluation, tender clarification and award.
4. Increase the degree of client involvement throughout detailed, engineering, procurement and construction phases.
5. Decreases the opportunity of synergi advantages you would otherwise have in terms of utilisation of resources and in procurement.
6. Increase the likelyhood of error and subsequent additional work to rectify those errors.
Points 1 to 5 of the above mean that the work you want done starts later than it otherwise could and costs you a great deal more.
And when it comes to work relating to Iraq's oil fields Bobert, even with your 15 small companies doing the job - guess where they will have to go to get the equipment to do the job - Yep you've guessed it - Halliburton; Schlumberger; Fluor and Bechtel. The only draw-back being that your 15 small companies will have to pay more for it - that cost will be reflected in their tenders Bobert - i.e. you will pay for it.