This is a contract dispute, and it's a very minor element of a very large contract. We recognize that the money is important to the individual members. If in fact we've incorrectly interpreted, then by all means we will do that.
On a matter of principle, this is truly an interpretation difference. I think there are aspects to our interpretation, again referencing the different parts of the policies. It's very important to understand the whole aspect of all of the services and the reasons why we bid what we did in order to understand whether or not our interpretation has any merit.
We assert that the members have already been paid for this, and that's what this real estate incentive is. The money flows through from the government over to the members, and its sole purpose is to fund property management services. Our assertion is that to bid any more than zero would be to double-charge the crown.