Public Accounts committee  I find it hard to answer on the basis of this one particular contract. I think it's very clear that this contract was not managed in the way one would expect, afterwards. We point to such things as the reconciliations and the assurances that the billings were actually for the services.

Public Accounts committee  We saw no indication that it was anything other than an administrative error.

Public Accounts committee  Absolutely, and I think that's one of the things that can be learned from this one. And in all fairness, Mr. Marshall and his group have been getting a lot of attention about the errors in the business volumes, but those business volumes were given to them—at least our understanding is that they were—by the departments.

Public Accounts committee  We saw no indication that this was wilful in any way. I think many people would say it was kind of an honest mistake. The volumes that were in the 2004 request for proposal were the same as those in the 2002 one. They were simply carried forward.

Public Accounts committee  In the report we note that the department put in place many good procedures and a fairness monitor, for example. There were a number of procedures they put in place that would have given rigour to the evaluation. It's perhaps unfortunate that the business volumes were wrong, because otherwise it could have been a very good process.

Public Accounts committee  There were basically two reasons. First, the business volumes indicated in the call for tender for services were significantly different from the real business volumes. In the call for tender for services it was indicated that a few more than 7,000 persons a year would need management services.

Public Accounts committee  Questions should have been raised about these figures.

Public Accounts committee  Of course, it is up to the government to make that decision; it must take other aspects into account, assess what is important and what the consequences will be, as Mr. Marshall indicated.

Public Accounts committee  The government decided to abide by the existing contract until it expires in 2009.

Public Accounts committee  We have not had many cases like this one, Mr. Chairman, which is probably a good thing.

Public Accounts committee  We did not review the 2002 process, we simply indicated that there had been conflict of interest allegations in 2002. The department investigated and established that there had not been a conflict of interest as such, but that there could be negative perceptions. Consequently, the government decided to cancel the contract and to do a new call for tenders.

Public Accounts committee  That was the committee's decision. We were asked to review the 2004 process because there had been several questions and complaints with regard to the awarding of the contract in 2004.

Public Accounts committee  Yes.

Public Accounts committee  We obviously disagree with that. We believe that the percentage that was requested would be the percentage for the property management services. In the contract as well it says that any subcontractors are to respect the percentages given in the contract. So if it's a zero bid then the subcontractor has to bid zero as well.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, I would hesitate to get into the specifics. Let me say, with all due respect to Mr. Williams, that this is a contract that has been issued with substantially incorrect business volumes. If it is a contract where bidders don't understand what the services are to be delivered and seem to have materially different opinions on that question, does this not raise the whole question about how fair and equitable this whole process has been?