Not that you did anything wrong, but an IT architect restarting the selection process would, ironically enough, be a violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
The correct way to go about it is to solicit for proposals, and any interested applicants will create a proposal. The submitted proposals will be reviewed by an applications board consisting of contracts officers, COTRs (Contract Officer Technical Rep, IIRC) and maybe a couple of architects, and judged against the criteria established in the solicitation, which may state that the technical superiority is more important than price, or what have you.
Presumably, either the sub or the prime contractor you were interviewing with had already submitted such a proposal, and was obligated to do the work as advertised in their proposal.
If they believed that it couldn't be done, the prime and/or sub-contractor would likely have been fired on inability to deliver, and the government would have had to re-solicit for the project altogether.
The correct way to go about it is to solicit for proposals, and any interested applicants will create a proposal. The submitted proposals will be reviewed by an applications board consisting of contracts officers, COTRs (Contract Officer Technical Rep, IIRC) and maybe a couple of architects, and judged against the criteria established in the solicitation, which may state that the technical superiority is more important than price, or what have you.
Presumably, either the sub or the prime contractor you were interviewing with had already submitted such a proposal, and was obligated to do the work as advertised in their proposal.
If they believed that it couldn't be done, the prime and/or sub-contractor would likely have been fired on inability to deliver, and the government would have had to re-solicit for the project altogether.