Is this a "SpaceX spread itself too thin and wasn't able to keep its own pre-agreed deadlines" situation or a "The government-specified contract was unrealistically aggressive / so vaguely-specified that it could not be realized within its original timetable" situation?
1. Back a low risk moon mission that is basically a repeat of Apollo using proven, but extremely expensive tech that has a very low probability of failure.
2. Back a high risk strategy that relies on the development of new technology that can potentially deliver hundreds of tons of cargo to the lunar surface for a fraction of the cost of Apollo and support a sustained human presence on the lunar surface. This of course comes with a near 100% chance of significant delays and cost overruns, and also a high probability of total failure.
IMO NASA made the obviously correct choice here and it's not close. This is exactly the kind of thing that I want my tax money spent on.
Option one basically lights a huge pile of money on fire, for a vanity goal.
Option two uses a much smaller pile of money to do something useful long term.
You can read the technical selection paper. Both Blue and SpaceX proposal met the minimal requirments, and SpaceX was cheaper by at least 50%. So they won the selection.