It's a frustrating kind of circumstance in the sense that it should have been caught. I think it's a circumstance where everyone who was involved likely had more obligations on them than they acted on.
What we found unusual, though, which we've been discussing since the finalization of the report, is the idea that even when it was made competitive—and it was made competitive to 40 suppliers, 10 of which indicated an interest to participate—not one of the suppliers challenged the restrictive nature of the requirements. To me that's baffling, particularly given that 10 of them expressed an interest. Either the community of suppliers accepted that this process was geared to a specific supplier or something else happened that I can't even hypothesize on.
However, I will say that these requirements were drafted in such a way that, having the benefit of all the information, they now seems even more restrictive than they would have if you were involved in the process, because you might not have been aware of the three previous contracts that had been delivered by that supplier if you were within PSPC. You may not have been aware of the exact circumstances of those contracts.
As I said, though, when they're as restrictive as these were on their face—it doesn't take any technical expertise to identify that these are heavily restrictive criteria—I expect PSPC to catch and push back on these types of criteria in the future.