We have made recommendations in this report.
I think one of the reasons we certainly wanted to get this audit completed was so, if we did identify any weaknesses that existed in the process, that could help to inform the process for the next contract in this area.
Certainly, if we compare the process that was used in 2004 to the process used for the 2009 contract, we see the processes were different, and I would say that the process to award the 2009 contract was better than the process for the 2004 contract.
We did find that the departments got behind schedule, and getting behind schedule meant it had to shorten some timeframes. It took some decisions—for example, issuing only one contract and not dividing it up into three contracts—and all of those decisions led to there being only one bidder that bidder being the incumbent service provider at that time.
I think the other thing that was concerning for us was that—even after it became evident that there would only be one bidder, and Public Works decided to apply its processes to examine the cost, to examine the price that was bid, and got some information that indicated there might be some cost components that shouldn't be allowed—they stopped that work and didn't adjust the pricing in the contract.
We saw the decision points along the way; we understood that they made those decisions, made them within the framework. Those decisions then led to there being only one bidder. But I think the concern for us was that, even after it led to one bidder, they didn't apply the processes they had available to them to examine the price that was bid in a one-bidder situation.