I think that's an excellent point. I believe a lot of things would have been different if there had been a fairness monitor. I think someone made that decision consciously for whatever motives they may have had.
In fact, talking about Mr. Minto, we did get a copy of the ETS evaluation that was referred to. It says in there that not having a fairness monitor was a violation of their internal policy—the policy that had only been in place for a year or something—and they chose not to do it.
The rationalization was that it was a repeat requirement. In other words, it was re-competing the same contract. But I don't understand why that shouldn't be just as fair, whether it's a new one or a repeat. It should have fairness associated with it.
So I agree absolutely with what you are saying.