I would make a few comments.
First, as David said, we don't know. I'm not sure we really want to know, but that's the way the game is played around the world. I'm not so sure we would want to do a disservice to our industry relative to what's going on everywhere else.
I will make the point that the change in how we use ITB to select a winning bidder is, to me, completely flawed. As you are aware, the old industrial and regional benefits structure basically said that any winning bid is going to be decided by the technical bid and the price. Every company would have to submit an industrial plan, which was rated pass/fail. Everybody knew how to play the game and nobody failed the industrial plan.
What we've done now, though—and we've seen it in the F-35 competition—is assign up to 20% to ITB. It didn't happen in this case, but I would say that there is a high risk going forward that if you put this much weight on industrial benefits, you are basically saying that you will be sacrificing optimum solutions for theoretical jobs in the future.
I'm putting on my former ADM—