Thank you very much for allowing a follow-up. We did want to come back and talk about what we're doing on measures of collusion to ensure that the procurement system has integrity.
I think it's worthwhile to circle back to the issue that we just went with in terms of the findings and recommendations as they relate to favouritism. At PSPC, we look at the procurement ombudsman's report, how we can best apply it, put in best practices and adjust.
In terms of this particular element, it's difficult for us because we do hundreds of thousands of contracts. We need to be able to assess the broader bidder pool—for example, how many times McKinsey competed—to be able to assess whether there was favouritism. Is this structured on these very modest contracts? We have to look at the contract value to see whether or not it exceeded what they competed for when they were sole-sourced. There are a lot of different assumptions that we need to unpack and work with the procurement ombudsman on.
On favouritism, while PSPC as a common service provider was not implicated in the findings—there's one small contract—I do want to be able to give a thoughtful response and make sure that we're not offside, because there are so many recommendations and best practices here.
Now, I'll turn to my colleague Mr. Laporte.