I concur. We reviewed this matter in June, independently of each other--we hadn't spoken--just prior to the contract being tendered to Brookfield and Royal Lepage. We had some concerns with it back in June, and nothing was done. The contract was tendered, but that does not negate the fact that it is a highly complex contract. There were very tight deadlines and timelines put in place, and there was a significant and realistic fear that the process favoured only one bidder, and lo and behold, that's all we had.
So there has to be legitimate concern that there wasn't a fair and open process. We look at how limiting the bidding process was: huge start-up costs, new technology, hiring and training of staff, opening up offices. It just limited the scope. We have to better understand what happened. This is a company that has won the same contract four times in a row, back in 1998, 2002, 2004, and yet again in 2009. It just doesn't seem right. I think we should look at it a little more closely.