mr. pearson. we're going to go to our co-chair, mr. tebow. he'll start the questions. >> first of all, miss brian and project for oversight, thank you. i note in your statement that you said you had approaching or over 20 individuals that had 20 unique, separate individuals from the company armor group that had contacted p.o.g.o. >> that's true. and that does not include the individuals referenced earlier who have filed litigation. they're not -- >> so it's 20 for p.o.g.o. and multiple for litigation. the reason that's important is so often in whistleblower cases there will be one or two individuals that bring the whistle and allege wrongdoing. and they're kind of history system, sometimes they're summarily dismissed as disgruntled employees or about ready to be fired employees. and in this case it's not everyone, but have you experienced that kind of referral in your past? >> that's a great question. i've been doing this for 20 years. and there has not been a circumstance that i can point to where such enormous percentage of individuals have

mr. pearson is a witness in the second panel and his statement says that one person had apparently run outof your hand and took the fire hose and put it between his legs. it is then that i realized that afghan nationals were whizzing the activity. this is the first time i had seen one of these parties. i was annoyed and disgusted i had three female third country nationals that were about 3 feet away and during the day, they were also -- there were also about 60 afghans present, two of which were female. >> i would strongly recommend that one of the first things you should already know about is what you have just heard from my fellow commissioners. . . . it. and it seems to me that it should be top priority for the state department to determine whether indeed afghans were there which it sure looks like and then to use that, if nothing else, as a reason for bringing this miserable contract to an end, which you can do. you can terminate the default. now, one other question. you have asserted that this firm was improving. i find that difficult to see in light of the letters and the notices and