CITT: January 2007 Determinations
Re A Complaint by Tankatek (CITT File No. PR-2006-038)
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal decided not to initiate an inquiry into this complaint by Tankatek against the department of Public Works and Government Services Canada ("PWGSC") on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to do so.
The CITT stated that under s. 7(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (Regulations), "a complaint must be in respect of a "designated contract" (i.e. a contract subject to the trade agreements)". The procurement in question was subject to the Set-Aside Program for Aboriginal Business. The Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT") does not apply to any measure adopted or maintained with respect to Aboriginal peoples. Furthermore, both the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") and the Agreement on Government Procurement ("AGP") exclude "set-asides for small and minority businesses". As none of the three agreements applied to this procurement, the CITT decided that it did not have jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.
Furthermore, the CITT found that even if any of the trade agreements had been applicable, there was no reasonable indication that the procurement was not carried out in accordance with the trade agreements. Although Tankatek claimed that PWGSC did not properly test the speakers proposed in response to the request for a volume discount in accordance with industry standards, the CITT held that PWGSC proceeded with diligence and tested the speakers in accordance with the documentation and the industry standards. (Date of Determination: 2007/01/11)
Re Europe Displays, Inc. (CITT File No. PR-2006-039)
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal decided not to investigate this complaint by Europe Displays, Inc. ("EDI") against the Department of Transport ("TC"). In this case, EDI alleged that TC violated its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") and the Agreement on Government Procurement ("AGP") by deciding that EDI was ineligible to submit a proposal for the solicitation in question. On December 21, 2006, TC advised EDI that it would not accept or evaluate EDI's proposal because it was located in the United States and therefore, ineligible to submit a bid. Furthermore, TC advised that it would not accept the proposal because the procurement was for communications services and, therefore, excluded from NAFTA.
The CITT found that the procurement related to "exhibit services", a class that was excluded under NAFTA and the AGP. Furthermore, the CITT held that EDI had no standing to file a complaint under the Agreement of Internal Trade ("AIT") since it was not a Canadian supplier. (Date of Determination: 2007/01/16)
