We did not. We mention certain suppliers by name because those were specific contracts that caught our attention. We named the supplier by name and included the value of the contract just to give a quantum for the reader to understand the implicated parties. For GC Strategies, there was a higher incidence of issues in those contracts. That's why they were identified in the report.
Specific to Dalian, the notation made in our report does not align necessarily with some of the other witness testimony they provided at the OGGO committee. The notation we make about Dalian is that they were a participant in a process where perhaps participating suppliers were made to believe that potentially two contracts would be issued, but in that instance only one contract was issued. It's a question of transparency to the supplier community to make sure people aren't wasting their time.