No...my point is that GE accepts trades of old equipment, for their newer designs. The prices offered for the old equipment is not specified in any solicitation; so, GE can offer any amount they wish, when bidding on a contract. This will make the difference as to who actually gets the business. It will be the person who offers the most money for the old equipment.
Anyone can lease or finance their equipment, by making an agreement with a financial institution, for their customers. If the company offering the lease is quite large, and they offer to back the lease (financially), their lease rates will be the lowest!
GE may have the ability to "bundle" other supplies and equipment, making competition more difficult; or, offer free installation and training, anywhere in the world.
I believe the recent government contract was an "indefinite-quantity and delivery type contract", not a firm contract for a fixed number of units. The only winner here, is the government, as they have fixed their price, without any obligation to purchase even one unit. This is why it had no impact on the share price.
OK, thanks for the return reply and the GE info - I understand your point now. Also, I didn't look at the recet contract that way, but I guess from the wording that you could be quite correct. Regardless, it sure didn't have an effect on the share price to the positive.