There are two issues, Chair. One is the internal processes that were used within National Defence to monitor, challenge, and approve the project. There were many changes, budgets, delays, etc., that we would have expected, as outlined in the project approval guide, of which there would have been senior oversight and senior approval, and those processes were not followed.
On the question of whether it was fair, open, and transparent, that goes back to the acquisition of the Chinook for which an ACAN was used. We had several issues with the way the process was done. We felt there should have been much better rationale and documentation as to why it was a directed contract, that there was only one supplier. When the ACAN was issued and another supplier indicated interest, that supplier was rated against the requirements, but the supplier to whom the contract was given had never been rated against those requirements. Furthermore, this was done in 2006, but the project definition changed significantly by the time the contract was finally done in 2009. We believe that, at a minimum, another ACAN should have been issued in 2009 with all of those new requirements.
So we do not believe that the contract process was fair, open, and transparent, and quite frankly, we believe it is more than a question of just fixing terminology.