I shouldn't doubt you, Auditor General. When I first asked you about this report I had a difficult time trying to envision how such a glaring error could take place.
But I think Mr. Goodfellow, who was the witness before us, was a good, honest witness. He gave his version of events. He said that the thing was so thick and there was some urgency to get on with it, so he just re-used the first one. He duplicated a mistake that was already in the first set of documents. I think I can understand that part of it.
There are two aspects to the assessment process or the evaluation process: 75% is technical or quality, and 75% is money. If I understand your report, you could not find anything wrong with the way the department handled the technical part of the evaluation. Is that correct?