When we look at the report on McKinsey, we see that, often, the justification given for awarding a non-competitive contract is that the contract has a low value. In one case, the amount of the contract was less than $40,000. However, the Auditor General found that a practice that is now becoming more and more common in a number of departments, including National Defence, is that the first contract has a low value, but that subsequently, a number of contracts are awarded and the total amount spent becomes quite significant.
In one of the cases, for example, a first contract worth $22,000 was awarded, which we agree can be done by mutual agreement. However, three subsequent contracts were awarded on a non-competitive basis for the same service, bringing the total value of the contracts to $5 million. So the rules were circumvented by saying in the first case that it was a low-value contract, and then awarding a series of contracts, with each involving a small amount of money, but ultimately totalling $5 million for the same service. Can this type of practice continue at National Defence?