No, that is correct. We noted all along, actually, that the department kept getting approval for additional funds and kept giving assurances that the project would work.
It was a U.S. decision, which leads to a whole other question: when we're in these joint projects and paying half the costs, do we really have half of the decision-making authority in them?
Then they went to the third system, which was actually acquired from the U.S. for $13 million and is operating. But we mentioned in the report that the whole statement of needs or requirements was developed at the beginning of the project, which was 12 years ago, and has not been not updated since then. We all know that security issues have changed significantly over that period of time, so there's the question, does the system now operating actually meet today's requirements?