Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to answer what I think your question is. The original program design, when it was established in 2011, was developed with a committee of some coalition members and government as well as community subject matter experts. The curriculum and the approach was established through that group and then a request for proposals for the program as designed, which was broader in nature than what we've gone with for the long-term program model. It was a different situation in that case in that it was up to proponents to provide a proposal that encompassed the entire program.
In this case, the RFP was based on one segment of the program delivery, in a modular way, if you will. The balance that we tried to strike was understanding that we knew we had significant interest from members of the coalition and other community members, as well as potentially members of the private sector or other community members such as elders, who may not be associated with any official organization. That RFP was designed in that way to make sure that all of those different groups would be encouraged to provide these services, so that we had the ability to provide that depth across the board.
What we did was try to balance making sure that RFP process was fair, so that we were not giving information to one group of potential proponents over another, as well as getting information from our community partners, in which coalition members were quite involved and consulted by the third-party evaluators. We took that into consideration, as well as the lessons learned from the delivery and the operation of the program. Thank you, Mr. Chair.