Dr. George Nakhla, (CRA’s designer of the Evaluation Methodology used on Munster):
        “Whatever judgement calls had to be made it was possible that another engineer
          might come up with a different score.”

Mr. Jeff White P.Eng. (Witness for one Appellant, and proponent of Snowfluent bid):
       “The Matrix (table F-1) can be made to come out whichever way you want. You
         can make black come out red because it is so subjective.”

Dr. Werner Daechsel (Appellant Witness for the CRC):
       “If the utility values based upon judgement are in error, the results will be in
         error.”

Mr. N.M. Katary, P.Eng. (Chair of the OMB Hearing):
 
       “If the methodology used in selecting the pipeline alternative is found to be
         deficient, then the choice of the pipeline alternative founded upon such a
        deficient methodology is inappropriate.”

        … “An aspect of evidence by Dr. Nakhla is worthy of note. … “His approach to
         defending the methodology used in this instance was more in the nature of
         advocacy than forthright professional opinion.”

         … “The facts presented as part of the evaluation methodology are not perfected
         enough to make a judgement based upon them. Simply put, the best evidence is
         not before the board.”
       
         … “The Board would like to request the City to perfect its case.” … “The
         Board is of the view that the public interest is best served by perfecting the
         case.”