Dynetics’ proposal was the most expensive, and they also couldn’t figure out a way to make it work at the time when the choice was made[1]:
> Of particular concern is the significant weakness within Dynetics’ proposal under Technical Area of Focus 1, Technical Design Concept, due to the SEP’s finding that Dynetics’ current mass estimate for its DAE far exceeds its current mass allocation; plainly stated, Dynetics’ proposal evidences a substantial negative mass allocation. This negative value, as opposed to positive reserves that could protect against mass increases at this phase of Dynetics’ development cycle, is disconcerting insofar as it calls into question the feasibility of Dynetics’ mission architecture and its ability to successfully close its mission as proposed.
You can read NASA’s full thoughts on that link. But the basics are, they thought there were good ideas, but they weren’t comfortable picking a lander that went far above the allotted budget, while the team who made the lander wasn’t able to come up with a way that it would work yet.
IIRC the original Dynetics proposal had a positive mass allocation, but it relied on refueling at the Artemis Lunar Gateway. NASA then changed the requirements so that the Artemis Lunar Gateway would not be fully available for the first moon landing, and Dynetics was unable to adapt their proposal.
For that matter, the Space 1999 "Eagle" for the same reason, just good design. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39484015
If a human lander tips over for any reason, that could be disastrous.