I'll give you a general answer and then I'll give you an ArriveCAN-specific answer.
The general answer is yes, the frequency with which this happens is a problem. Also, you have to look at the specifics in this circumstance, which is why I find it offensive. It's because the structure of the evaluation criteria was heavily weighted towards the technical component. There was a 70% premium based on the technical component, which was primarily an assessment of the resources. Ultimately, some or all of the resources didn't perform tasks. Essentially, there are criteria with which you're selecting the preferred proponent to deliver on the services, but they're being selected for a reason that they don't ultimately deliver on. That's troubling.
We talked about this in the best value section, but it has a cascading impact. It starts with the seventy-thirty selection methodology, which diminishes the value of price. I'll refer to it as bait and switch. Then you have the bait and switch. The resources on which you're ultimately selecting the preferred proponent are switched out of the process. Then you have this “median bands” issue on the already limited 30% price. That really restricts the value of the price component. As a result, you're selecting the preferred proponent based on criteria that are not playing out in material fact. That's what makes it so offensive.