Matt Hewitt: Got it. And maybe one last one, and then I’ll hop back in the queue and maybe touches on that a little bit. So there’s been a step-up in R&D investment here the past couple of quarters, a little bit more pronounced here in Q1. Is there anything tied to that? Obviously, you called out that you’ve got six different federal or FDA partnerships, if you are — or contracts that you’re working on, but typically, those dollars kind of offset R&D. So is this some internal investment? Is there something that you’re investing there? Or is something else that’s sitting in that line?
Shawn O’Connor: Yes, Matt, I think yes, some incremental spend there as the scientific resources are allocated during the quarter into development work there. I think the percentage there probably exaggerated a little bit because of the lowest quarter top line revenue causing that percentage to go up a bit as well. We’ll give guidance for the year. I don’t know that the R&D for the year will come out any different than our historical payout in there in the long run.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Dane Leone with Raymond James. Please proceed with your question.
Dane Leone: Maybe you could just talk a little bit more of where you’re seeing some of the investment by therapeutic area or drug development area. You’d mentioned NASH, I was just curious on that area, given — I remember a year ago, you had seen some pullback in spending on NASH-related projects. And anything you’d say on some of the oncology products as well, that would be great.
Shawn O’Connor: Sure, Dave. Yes. No, we’ve not pulled back. There’s an ebb and flow in terms of the client activity in the therapeutic areas, and NASH has been one that the NAFLDsym product and our QSP/QST group supports clients in that area on an ongoing basis, we just had a significant project this last quarter there. It ebbs and flows. Oncology area, one of the stronger areas in terms of drug development today, an area that we support as well. Neurological therapeutic endeavors is a larger area for us as well. But the service group performs across the board, the full spectrum of therapeutic areas.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of François Brisebois with Oppenheimer. Please proceed with your question.
François Brisebois: Just a couple here. You talked about TAM expansion. The example you gave with the investment company that used the software to gauge probably success of a clinical trial outcome. I was just wondering if you disclose how you would charge an investment company and is it related to maybe the profit that they can make off a correct decision? Or is this a project that you think that could significantly actually expand the TAM that you’re currently looking at? Or is it kind of a one-off?
Shawn O’Connor: Hopefully, it’s not a one-off, Frank. It’s an area that knocked on a lot of doors over the years with modeling and simulation support to either capital entities or investment companies and sporadic success in that regard. It was a highlight during the quarter. Very successful project performed. I would say that our model there has been similar to the work we do for our more traditional clients and that we do work for fee, whether it’s timing materials or fixed rate. We don’t do our service engagements with any future drug success royalty stream or in this case, they return on investment opportunity as part of the proceeds of our work effort there. But it’s priced accordingly as best we can. And it doesn’t really have an indirect impact in terms of the strategic investment opportunities that we’re looking at in terms of expanding our TAM.
If that market opens up and we can do more work like that, it will be incremental to our business but not a large TAM.
François Brisebois: Okay. Great. And then in terms of the strategic partnership angle, is this — is it fair to assume that this was just not part of the plan in terms of corporate development in the past outright acquisitions and now this expands it? Or was it also somewhat part of the plan in the past?
Shawn O’Connor: I would say that it really wasn’t a focus on our part. We were very focused in terms of the — continuing the success of prior acquisitions, which were always very focused on stand-alone entities with the criteria that we listed off with an acquisition orientation and not really an open eye to opportunities that might not be right for acquisition at this point in time, but a strategic investment would link the two organizations, could lead ultimately to an acquisition down the road but most importantly, would open up some technology sharing or market capability sharing the will enhance obviously both companies in the shorter run.
François Brisebois: Okay. Great. And in terms of the business model, is it fair to assume this would be some sort of a biotech kind of upfront and milestones in royalties with the partnership or too early to disclose.
Shawn O’Connor: Each deal can take its own form based upon circumstances. Our focus is primarily in terms of, again, like our acquisition strategy, we’ll be focused on software opportunities, service opportunities as well, but software opportunities that can build the technology either within our products or in some linkage to other capabilities in third party’s hands. And those terms of those strategic investments can take many, many forms. But I wouldn’t limit it to a sort of drug oriented — drug development oriented milestone royalty type of arrangement.
