CITT: December 2006 Determinations
Re West Atlantic Systems (CITT File No. PR-2006-036)
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal decided not to initiate an inquiry into the complaint by West Atlantic Systems ("WAS"). WAS alleged that the Department of Public Works and Government Services ("PWGSC") improperly limited the procurement to the products of Hewlett Packard. WAS also alleged that the solicitation did not provide actual specifications, performance criteria, and legitimate operational requirements.
The CITT found that the objection made by WAS was beyond the time limit established by subsection 6(2) of the Canadian International Trade Procurement Inquiry Regulations . Under this provision, in order to be considered timely, a complaint must be filed within ten working days after the day on which its basis became known or should have become reasonably known to the potential supplier. WAS should have filed its complaint within ten days of October 13, 2006. WAS only made an objection to PWGSC on November 22, 2006, and accordingly, its complaint was filed outside the time limits established in section 6(2) of the Regulations . (Date of Determination: 2006/12/18)
Antian Professional Services Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (CITT File No. PR-2006-024)
Antian Professional Services Inc. ("Antian") filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ("the CITT") concerning the procurement by the Department of Public Works and Government Services ("PWGSC") for a Regional Master Standing Offer ("RMSO") for the provision of exhibit management/coordination services and/or exhibit personnel services.
The basis of Antian's complaint was that the evaluation of its proposal, along the evaluation of the company that was ranked first, Impact Marketing Solutions Ltd., operating as CMG Canada ("CMG"), was improperly conducted. Antian also alleged that the evaluation team may have been biased as the leader of the team had worked with CMG in the past.
In regards to the first complaint, Antian alleged that PWGSC did not follow the specific wording of the criteria provided and evaluated the bids based on criteria not indicated to the bidders. The CITT reviewed the bid criteria and found that in a number of instances PWGSC did not follow the rated criteria in the RFSO when it evaluated Antian's proposal and that its evaluation approach could not reasonably be inferred by bidders from the RFSO. The CITT found this to be contrary to subsection 506(6) of the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT") and therefore, a valid ground of complaint.
In regards to the second complaint, the CITT noted that the RFSO advised bidders that the evaluation team would be made up of PWGSC and client department representatives. Accordingly, the inclusion of a Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food employee did not, in and of itself, represent a breach of the AIT . The evidence did not indicate that the participation of this evaluator caused any bias in the evaluation process. Accordingly, the CITT found this ground of complaint not to be valid.
The instances of misuse of the evaluation criteria were so pervasive that the evaluation amounted for a general disregard for the criteria in the RFSO. Given that the standing offer was valued at $1 million and had the potential to be for a significant period of time, the prejudice to Antian is serious. The CITT recommended that Antian be compensated by an amount equal to one half the reasonable profit that it would have received during the initial period had it been ranked first. The CITT also awarded Antian its reasonable costs incurred in preparing and proceeding with the complaint. (Date of Determination: 2006/12/20)
