Okay, thank you.
I would suggest that in the future, you try to be more precise, because I think that lends itself to significantly less confusion.
Further to the issue of contract splitting, there's been an effort to portray this as an instance of forgetting to cross the t's and dot the i's, but contract splitting involves intention. It involves somebody knowing what the rules are—that a competitive process is required over a certain threshold—and then intentionally trying to divide the contract up in a way that is not consistent with policies in order to get around policies and avoid a competitive process. This is explicitly a kind of corruption, an effort to circumvent the rules to avoid a competitive process and benefit somebody. That needs to be noted in the context of some of the downplaying of the problems going on.
Do you have any information about the motivation behind the contract splitting and, in the instances of contract splitting, who specifically benefited from it?