I note your comment about unless other information comes to the fore.
With regard to your question, I don't agree that that was proper procurement. It was not an unsolicited proposal. The rules allow for prime contractors to subcontract and, as this committee has heard and asked about, to sub-subcontract. It's not for the CBSA or a department to try to manage and develop those subcontracts. Those are business decisions between entities in the course of a procurement. What I have seen, based on the documents that you're referring to, is that the CBSA's involvement in how those contracts would come together is not usual.
In looking at other options, the CBSA presumably could have put out an RFP for its requirements. It could have looked to justify a sole source. It could have used supply arrangements and pre-qualified. There were other options. It's not clear to me that what was happening was appropriate. In fact, it appears to be inappropriate. The spirit of the supply arrangements and standing offers is not to retrofit products through them.