Mr. John Pollock:

The controversy concerned the awarding of the contract. Once one comes to awarding the contract, one nominates the preferred candidate - in that case, Arup was the preferred candidate - and one then enters a stand still period of 30 days, to allow people the opportunity to object and raise concerns. One sends out the marking to the unsuccessful candidates to show them how they scored in terms of the technical and financial evaluations and how they compared with the successful candidate. For example, out of an overall score of 100 a score is awarded. We made a mistake in that we gave the total score for one of the evaluation panels. Let us say, for example, it was a score of 70. However, when the bidder looked at the addition, a 45 had become a 54 in transcribing the letter. Therefore, the addition was not correct, but the bottom line was correct. Therefore, the bidder raised an issue regarding whether we were sure we had marked the teams correctly. We reviewed and confirmed the evaluation had been conducted correctly and the arithmetic stood.