I pick up on two things here. The first is that you talked about how larger companies seem to just perform better or succeed in achieving contracts, but we heard that a company like KPMG, which is massive, was instructed by the public service to be a subcontractor to a firm that is objectively tiny, GC Strategies—two people. How is that possible when, for all of the reasons that you said, it's true that larger firms perform better? How do we end up in a situation in which we're using a firm that doesn't add any value? Its supposed value is to source expertise and resources, but instead it costs the taxpayers up to 30% more. KPMG is a known commodity and the heavy hitter in that scenario.
On July 24th, 2024. See this statement in context.