Yes. I said a little bit more in my written evidence, but I cut it out in the verbal evidence.
There were two bids, apparently, according to the reports I have seen in the newspapers. One from AREVA was for about $7,000 U.S. per kilowatt, but that wasn't compliant with the terms of the contract, because AREVA was not willing to take any of the construction risk. The bid from AECL was compliant because it did take some of the construction risk; it wasn't specified how that construction risk was taken, whether it was an entirely fixed price contract or what.
I think the relevance, though, is to the Olkiluoto order, which was a fixed price contract for 3 billion euros—or what appeared to be a fixed price contract. Now that's in dispute. AREVA is suing the customer and the customer is suing AREVA for the cost overruns, so it's a very messy situation.
But it does illustrate the point that asking a vendor to take the risk of cost overrun is going to add to the cost of the bid. That's probably one of the reasons why AECL's bid was so high.