What we heard or what we understood was that, in many ways, we didn't well document how we did that prioritization.
When we do a call and when we have an evaluation, the evaluation is usually done in two steps. First and foremost, we look to make sure that the application is eligible and that the application or the project that is being put forward is well aligned with the program objectives and is going to help us advance the goals.
After that first eligibility assessment, we tend to have multidisciplinary review committees where we bring to bear knowledge and expertise that represent the different modes of transportation that can really help us assess the merits of a proposal. These meetings tend to happen more on a regional basis, so we're looking at all of the projects in a specific region wanting to understand those projects, and then we do it again at a national level so we can take a holistic national approach.
In that process, these various elements were discussed. I think where we really fell down was properly documenting how we may have calibrated and how we may have adjusted. If we felt that one region was particularly generous in its assessment and one region wasn't, we didn't do a good job of documenting how we calibrated that to make sure the assessment process was fair and transparent, but what I would say is—