That subcontractor didn't have a contract, just to be clear, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is this idea that in these task authorizations, different resources are valued at different amounts. We've heard at this committee about the bait-and-switch approach that some unscrupulous companies use, whereby they suggest that certain resources are going to be used in order to get the work, and then when the work is actually done, they use different resources that cost them less.
Here we have a case in which a contractor is indicating that a certain resource was involved in the work when in fact they weren't, and you're saying that isn't a problem?