Chair, yes, I can certainly bring some clarity to the matter.
Ultimately, a head of mission expressing a view about a property does not necessarily influence the process and I will explain to you why.
We have a very robust process by which we capture all of the needs and the requirements from various sources. That would include consulting with the mission and the mission staff on the ground. Then we receive input and all of that is compiled in a document that is called a statement of investment requirement. It's a very sophisticated document in which we put all of the requirements.
That document is used to go to governance and then the governance looks at the requirements and applies the standards that we have as per our manual. All of this process is very regulated. It has very robust governance looking at it.
In the course of doing this, we have asked the mission for their views. We didn't ask the consul general directly for his views. He didn't engage with us to give us his views directly. However, in the documents, somebody has quoted an opinion that he may have shared at the mission with his staff.
I would say that with all of that due process that followed the reception of the statement of requirement, the process was very isolated and was managed all by headquarters without influence from Mr. Clark.