It seems to me you're doing everything you can to misrepresent this contract, which is a major capital project.
By only tendering 4% of the contract, 96% of the contract will go to amendments, which doesn't make sense. If even 10% of the initial contract had gone to tender, this would have been considered a major capital project. If this refit had been designated as a capital project—which it fits, under the glossary or the definition by Treasury Board—it would have been a major capital project.
It appears to me that you're misrepresenting this contract to try to get under the $100 million threshold, so that it doesn't go to the senior project advisory committee.