Memento for two billion

A few days ago, a new judicial complex was opened in Brno. Its expensive construction has been accompanied by many scandals, starting from the processing of the architectural design under suspicious circumstances.
Among the current articles about the opening of the complex, information has emerged about a dispute between the author of the architectural study, a leading Brno architectural studio, and the developer of the project documentation, a Zlín design institute. For example, the server aktualne.cz cited an architect highlighting the fact that the designer used a design created as part of an architectural competition without resolving the copyright issues.
The problem is that a legitimate architectural competition never took place in this case. The selection of the best study can at most be labeled a hidden architectural competition, which the Czech Chamber of Architects subsequently declared irregular. The regional court directly contacted four Brno architectural studios and commissioned them to develop the architectural study. The architects for this evidently over-the-limit project reportedly received one hundredth of its actual value. Not only in Brno do people say about such commissions that "sparrows on the roof"; what matters is to keep the studio alive, and if I don't do it, someone else will, and it will end worse...
Unfortunately, declaring the competition irregular came too late in this case. Moreover, it is unclear whether it would have changed anything in the outcome. The client never considered the Chamber as a negotiation partner, and representatives of the Chamber even encountered open mockery in communication with him. One can also doubt that once the approached architects accepted the contract, which evidently had the character of an irregular competition, they would have stopped working after a timely designation of the competition as irregular. After all, in the next major case - the developer competition for the Ostrava Karolina - the hidden architectural competition was deemed irregular in time, but it did not change the outcome, and the author of the winning study faced media attention instead of disciplinary proceedings - at least from those that consider the controversial result to be of high quality.
The Brno judicial palace is already standing, and its unfortunate external appearance, which the designer did not adopt from the architectural study (reportedly unlike the internal arrangement), serves as a certain memento. For the next few decades, it will point to how public contracts were awarded in today's age. Given that it is also an institution that is supposed to oversee the quality of public contract processes, the entire matter reaches perfect absurdity.
The question is whether this example will sufficiently educate clients and architects that a large public contract should begin with a well-prepared architectural competition and end with a transparent selection of a construction firm for implementation. Or do we need another building that will contrast in its creation with the name of the institution housed within it? Do we need another memento that will cost us half a billion and the Edelmann Palace - or perhaps three times that much - also in Olomouc?