I think you get around it by—and we've talked about it already—renewing the focus not on the technology or the platform but on what solution the government is looking for. You ask yourself what the problem is that you're trying to solve by going about this procurement and then engage the industry in that side of the conversation.
What the industry sees is normally just the prescribed tech requirements from government, and then everybody is to go bid on that. Half of the industry would be ostensibly expelled from taking part because they don't meet those tech requirements, so they're going to walk away from it before it even gets under way.
There's also the fact that it takes 18 months. There isn't an SME in the country that can afford to spend $600,000 or $700,000 in resources to take part in one of these complex procurement processes that take over a year, so we can continue to say that it goes to larger businesses.
Andy talked about the 15% requirement for set-asides for SMEs on some of these ITB procurements. I think it might be better, rather than using a stick to provide incentives for engaging with SMEs on these and letting some of the larger vendors go out and access SME innovations, if the government isn't doing a great job of it, maybe the larger firms could go out and do it. They're dealing with a lot of SMEs and they're dealing to deliver to the private sector with a lot of these SMEs already.