I think the fundamental issue we were raising was, yes, they went through a process and that process was about trying to attract the interest in the market in this role. But as I think we lay out in the next number of paragraphs, because it was treated as an investment, it didn't follow the rigour that you would find in a normal procurement process.
In the end, it looks like it perhaps has not caused a big problem, but it could have caused a problem. Whenever there's this type of an arrangement and you have in the expression of interest that you reserve the right to pick anybody, I think we identified that the scoring mechanism was changed. I think it wasn't even developed until after the bids were in, and then it was changed during the process. One of the companies that was picked wasn't even a company that had put in a bid in the first place. There was just a number of things that could have made somebody question whether the process was or was not fair.
I think the warning here is less that there was necessarily a problem at the end of this one. I mean, they have companies in place. I think the warning is more that whenever a department decides that something is not a procurement process and therefore they can do some things that are outside a regular procurement process, it really raises the risk that at the end you could have people say, “Wait a minute, this process wasn't fair.”