This scenario discusses a situation in which a proposal has been published by a consortium of foundations for an "external" evaluator to evaluate a replication at two new sites of a program they have been funding for many years. A proposal is received from Dr. Porto-Novo, who has been the external evaluator of the initial program for about 10 years. She has developed much of her reputation and that of her group, Riga, Inc., as well as the majority of Riga's budget, from this work. High-quality proposals are also received from several other fully qualified evaluators. A team consisting of two staff members from the initial program, two foundation staff members, and an external evaluation expert has reviewed the proposals. The team has given several of the proposals high rankings, but it is split about the award. Staff members from the initial program want to award the contract to Riga, but the staff representatives of the foundation argue against this. They explain that they feel that Riga has such a close relationship with the agency that it can no longer be considered external. Serving as the external evaluation expert on the team, this author was asked to help break the impasse. In this paper, she presents the advantages and disadvantages to both arguments. (Contains 1 table.)