There were many factors. I think I will list just three quickly.
First was the continued reliance on an external vendor over time, when that is more costly than having the public service do some of the work. We would have expected something to transition at some point to the public service.
The second was that many of the contracts we saw with GC Strategies and some of the other vendors consistently required the highest level of IT experience, with that experience being 10 years or more, when there was never a good justification for why that was always the level of experience needed. You would normally expect in a development project to see many different layers and levels of IT experience being needed.
Finally, I would point to contract extensions. There were multiple that we saw for which the dollar value was increased and very few instances for which deliverables were expanded.
All of those contributed, among other factors, to why we believe the government did not get the best value for money and, ultimately, paid too much for the ArriveCAN application.