I am simply going by what the procurement ombud reported on. He questioned the fairness and the transparency with respect to the lack of documentation that was available to determine whether or not McKinsey defined its own scope of work. We'll leave that there. I believe there are questions around fairness and transparency. Those are the procurement ombud's words, not mine.
He also found multiple cases of departments changing procurement strategies to allow for McKinsey's participation. He also found that departments avoided mandatory methods of supply in order to direct contracts to McKinsey. Then he found that departments failed to establish cost estimates before discussions with McKinsey. He found that bids were inappropriately re-evaluated, resulting in McKinsey being the only compliant bidder and being awarded the contract. All of this was under the watchful eye of PSPC.
I believe this is a colossal failure of your department's core purpose. What value does your department offer aside from the rubber-stamping of corrupt procurement practices?