I think one point to clarify here is that the national master standing offer was done in a non-competitive way. While Public Services and Procurement Canada provided a justification, we felt it was rather weak. Then the next step is where I think confusion existed: when there were 19 call-ups against the national master standing offer.
I think the organizations felt that they were using a procurement vehicle that was at their disposal and that they didn't need to justify why they were using that vehicle. However, when you realize that it is the first time a contract is being issued between the government and McKinsey, the non-competitive contracting rules kick in, and there should have been a well-documented rationale for that national master standing offer versus another.