Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses. Welcome back to OGGO.
This is obviously a complicated topic, and for the members of the public who might be watching—I can't imagine there are too many of those hearty souls—I think we can get lost a little bit in some of the nuance and the detail of it.
I was refreshing my memory of some of the Auditor General's findings, and one that really stands out to me is the idea that, “In 4 of 28 competitive contracts, the procurement strategy appeared to be designed and implemented to suit McKinsey & Company.”
It reminded me of some of the findings related to ArriveCAN, where in some cases the vendor was in communication with the procuring agency around the criteria for the procurement. It's essentially about designing a procurement strategy to fit the needs of certain vendors so that they get the work. I think we can all agree that, when it comes to competitive procurement, that's kind of against the rules. That's not how it's supposed to work. I see nodding. This feels like a bit of a no-brainer, yet this is what the Auditor General says it looks like happened here.
She goes on to say they found “that McKinsey...was not a pre-qualified vendor under the supply arrangement originally considered.” The contract requirements were then modified “to be able to use a different supply arrangement”, and no documentation was found “that would support the change in approach.”
There are two things that could be happening here. One is that they made the right decision and they just didn't show their work, and the other is that they made the wrong decision and they actually put their thumb on the scale for McKinsey.
Which of those two scenarios is the true one? Which one reflects the reality of what happened in two of those four cases?