I have a hard time explaining that. I think the department has already responded in part. Due to that, people may have thought they were doing it appropriately, and obviously they weren't. In an internal review in 2003, the department started to recognize problems. Given the size of the contract—and from 1998 to 2006 we're talking about over $2 billion being spent without the proper financial authorities—we did think it was important to bring it forward.
On February 7th, 2007. See this statement in context.