Perhaps I may start and my colleagues will jump in.
Again, I don't think there's a single answer. It depends on a set of circumstances. You talked earlier about the situation where you may have competition very early on in the process. Pick your R and D partner, if you will, government and industry, get the money on the table of the joint investment of the public and private sector, and then, provided everything works out well, you would probably not want to compete and throw the baby out with the bathwater. That would be one scenario. Where there are commodities and multiple sources, I think we should compete it to the hilt to get the best price and the best product.
It depends on what's in the pipeline, in the procurement pipeline, to look at each one of these on their merits and ask, how do you get the best deal for the country, all factors in? Unfortunately, buying pencils would be much easier than buying sophisticated military systems. So whether it's 80-20 or 20-80 on any given day, I don't know.
The U.S. model does take into account whose blood is on the table, but if there's significant private sector investment, it is taken into account in terms of the eventual selection process. This is true of most countries. I think the pendulum has perhaps swung a little overboard, as you've heard in our report. Competition for the sake of competition doesn't necessarily give the best value in every case.