If industry is funding some tug, whoever is paying for it should
decide who should build it, how it should be paid for, how it should be
built and where it shold be stationed. The only way that the State of
Washington should the least amount of say is IF the State of Washington
is paying for (at least part of) it. If the state is working out a public/private
partnership with financial contributions from both private and public
parties, then it would be reasonable for the legislature to tell those
negotiating this partnership on the state's behalf, that they must meet certain requirements
(minimum specifications, service area, or stationing location) before
they are allowed to commit public funds. The private organizations
would then be allowed to decide whether to continue at all, continue
with a public partner, or go it alone.
The operative rule is the "he who pays the piper calls the tune."
Pretend that the proposed operators of this mythical tug decided that digital photography did not have sufficient capability to ensure that they would be able to capture the detail necessary to enhance the photographs that they would need so they decided to use old-fashioned film photography. Suppose that they could even convince hard-headed budgeteers on their side. Would they have to carry a second set of camaeras and maybe a second photographer just to satisfy some mandate of the unknowing legislature for a capability that they might never use. Maybe they would only give the state the inadequate digital photos and then, when they got to court, bring out the good stuff. Maybe it is not cameras but some other mandate that gets overtaken by new techonology so that they are forced to adopt some inferior product because of the legislature's meddling.
Basically, if the legislature wants to keep the capability it is already funding, put some money into a public/private partnership and specify functions that you need, not discrete capabilities.