Well, during our audits, we kept trying to figure out why we were seeing the behaviour that we were seeing. When we spoke to public servants, some at times were unaware of some of the requirements that existed in the procurement rules. I think that would be particularly true when we were looking at some of the lower-dollar-value contracts—contracts under $40,000—many of which were contracts that were issued to GC Strategies.
By default, the procurement rules are competitive, because that usually ensures a better price, but there are some exemptions. One is if the contract value is under $40,000. The requirement, however, still exists for whoever is going to issue that contract to say that they need to make sure that this is the right market rate or that they're not paying too much, so they need to do something: email other vendors or do a web search—something. We found that this was often missed, that no one confirmed whether the price was the market price. However, that is a requirement. That's why I say that there are things that seem to be basic to ensure good value for money that are not necessarily always known, which brings me back to why I believe there needs to be a good reminder of the rules and then, to make this more efficient, an analysis or triaging to see whether there are just too many.