Thank you for being here today.
I very much appreciate the report. It's extremely helpful in terms of what you've produced as an ombudsman, what you've reviewed and what this committee has been trying to ascertain.
The recommendations are all very reasonable and actionable. I think the appendix of your report, on page 31, references the various departments that are in fact implementing or in the process of implementing some of those very recommendations they saw and you have rightly put forward.
Your findings point to concerns with regard to a lapsing of the processes for handling IT services contracts. There is no allegation, however, of corruption, as far as I can tell from what I've read, and there's certainly no suggestion that there was political interference. Some are working hard, I think, to misconstrue one of your findings—namely that, in 76% of the contracts examined, resources were part of the original bid and then ultimately they used different suppliers, or there were swaps, as you cited in your opening statement.
Some may try to say that means that people paid under those contracts didn't actually do the work, when, in fact, I think that's categorically false, because only people who carry out the work were actually paid. I just want to get clarity on this finding, on where those resources of 76% of contracts were between the time of the contract award and then the task authorization—that lapse.
I have three questions in particular, and I'm hoping I have time.
One, this is allowed under the rules for certain cases; however, the issue you seem to have brought forward, obviously, is that it's maybe happening too frequently. Is that correct?