Maybe I'll take a stab and hope the connection works on this one.
There is one thing I want to flag for the committee, which is that we often think about procurement as a comparison for what fairness looks like. The thing with a standard procurement process is that businesses, when they're doing competitive bidding, lose money on the bids that fail, but they recoup it by charging more for bids that succeed.
When you're working with non-profits, that doesn't apply. If they're in a competitive process and they spend $20,000 on a bid, if you will, or on an application and it fails, they're out-of-pocket. We don't actually get the same kind of demand from non-profits for competitive processes.
I'm not making an argument against fairness or transparency. I'm just saying that it's actually not the way it works. It's not really what people want, necessarily. They want to know what's going on. They want to be able to knock on our door and say, “Hey, I've got an idea.”
On this one, we talked to basically everyone who might be able to help. We sort of know who they are, the people who work in these spaces. We reached out to them—and remember, we were in a massive rush—and said, “Do you have something that you have to offer?” The word was out quite broadly on the non-profit side.
I take the point that's been raised here, but it wasn't that we decided who we weren't going to talk to. We basically reached out to everyone we thought might possibly be able to help. People like that process, because they know they're not wasting their time trying to put in a bid and then having to eat the cost if it's unsuccessful.