Thank you.
I'd like to move on to the contracts that Casey Computing Solutions won. In 2002 there were six contracts. I'll separate them out into two sections. The first five were all contracts under the approximately $85,000 NAFTA limit, which otherwise would have required a very fulsome tendering process. So there is a pattern that all of these contracts were beneath those stringent requirements, and when we look at that KPMG report and run through the contracts—and I'll just highlight a single point on each—on the first contract, number 560-3037, the KPMG report states, “The contract winners decided before request for proposals”. Obviously, Casey Computing Solutions was the beneficiary of that process.
A month later, the second contract, 560-3038, appeared to be a contact for work previously done by the same people hired by Casey Computing Solutions, work they had previously done for the RCMP. Once again, Casey Computing Solutions was the beneficiary of that.
On the third contract, 560-3089, Mr. Brazeau stated that it was not cost-effective to solicit bids at that time. Once again, Casey Computing Solutions was the beneficiary of the third contract.
On the fourth contract, 560-3138, there was only one bid. Casey Computing Solutions was the beneficiary of that one.
On the fifth contract, 560-3261, perhaps I'll just read a few parts of what KPMG had to say in their report: “The scoring evaluation appears to have been done solely by Mr. Brazeau”.
It goes on to say: “We noted a number of instances where the pen marks would appear to indicate that the scoring was changed for the various bidders. In fact, there are two instances for the second highest bidder where the scoring appears to have been reduced”. That begs the question of why that perhaps happened.
And it goes on to note: “We note that the second highest bidder proposed a per diem of $585 versus Casey's proposed per diem of $1,025”.
We've also heard testimony from Mr. Guimont's predecessor that as far as he was concerned, this contracting was rigged. Those are pretty harsh terms he used.
But all of those were small contracts, within five months; they were all under the $85,000 limit. But then we hit the big bonanza. Contract 560-3261 was a contract with an amended value just shy of $3 million, and when we look to see what happened there, we find that only one company bid: Casey Computing Solutions. They had done all of the previous work required. They had done some of the work that was part of this bigger contract.
So my question to you, Mr. Casey is, are you aware that you were the only bidder on this contract? Or perhaps your wife would prefer to answer.