What I'll do is first address the impact on the procurement process. In that 41%, the actual attributes of the resource were a big part of the decision-making process as to who would ultimately deliver on that project. The quality of the resource was defined by the government as being important. When that resource is replaced, it's incredibly important that this important resource reflect those same attributes.
What we were suggesting is that in 41% of those instances, that resource didn't reflect those same attributes. What that means is a lower standard in many of these instances when a resource was provided, perhaps at a higher price point. Then, from a procurement standpoint, it could have potentially altered the sequencing in terms of who ultimately would have been the successful supplier.