Thank you, sir.
I would point out, to re-emphasize in that one paragraph of their letter to Mr. Berthelette, it says “in the absence of the final Statement of Operational Requirements”.
So to you, sir, clearly, your facts in the chapter are absolutely correct, and even though Public Works was disputing the facts, according to some of their correspondence they didn't actually see the statement of operational requirements when they made a decision, because it wasn't provided to them.
I'm not asking you to confirm that; I think you've actually said that, so I'll leave that to the side.
The other piece of action in this letter I would ask you to comment on--and I'm not sure that you can--is on the signed page of this document, again the same letter, where there's a handwritten piece that says:
P.S. At the request of the OAG, this letter was re-signed on the 17.02.2012 with the “Protected A” clearance as opposed to “Secret” as originally sent on 07.02.2012.
Can you tell us why that request was made and why they acquiesced to the request? If they thought it was “Secret” to start with, why did they change it to “Protected A”?