Here's the problem. Your partner, Mr. Nijjar, on the last occasion at committee, said the firm, KPMG, followed “rigorous...processes” and determined “no adverse considerations in contracting with GC Strategies, given that [they were] a well-known entity in the government sector”. Both versions cannot be true at the same time.
What were those “rigorous...processes” that determined there were “no adverse considerations”? Did you at least do an address check?