I find what I read in paragraph 1.64 of your report rather troubling. In fact, several paragraphs have that effect on me.
That paragraph says that no requirements were found in the non-competitive contracts that the resources' skills had to be demonstrated.
So I understand that the non-competitive contracts did not contain any requirement that the resources selected had to demonstrate their skills.
That paragraph also says that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the resources' skills met the requirements in the competitive contracts. So something was required and we do not know whether the resources selected have the skills to meet the requirements or they have been over-valued.
Have I understood correctly?