Close Combat Vehicles project—Request for proposal 2

Fairness monitor final report, April 10, 2013

Addendum to final report, February 16, 2016

Submitted to Director General, Operational Integrity Sector

Submitted by Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture

Close combat vehicles project—Request for proposal 2PDF version (193KB)
Alternative formats and plug-ins

On this page

Background and introduction

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in joint venture was engaged as the fairness monitor (FM) to observe the competitive procurement process for Request for proposal 2 (RFP2) for close combat patrol vehicles (CCV) for the Department of National Defence, undertaken by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) through Solicitation Number W6508-10CC01/J. Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in joint venture is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We hereby submit the final report covering our activities commencing with the review of a Request for proposal (RFP), the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and specific activities and relevant findings.

Project requirement

The Government of Canada identified a requirement to select a company to provide close combat vehicles (CCV) and associated in-service support to the Department of National Defence.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the procurement process to select a company to provide close combat vehicles (CCV) and associated in-service support to the Department of National Defence:

It is our professional opinion that the competitive process we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Note: For all references in this report concerning fairness related comments being provided to project officials, it is confirmed that, as necessary, project officials provided clarification to the FM or took appropriate action to address the comments, and as a result no fairness deficiencies were recorded.

Original signed by
Roger Bridges
President
Knowles Consultancy Services Inc.
FM Contractor’s Representative

Original signed by
Peter Woods
FM Team Leader

Original signed by
Bruce Maynard P. Eng.
FM Specialist

Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology

The overall objective was as follows: provide PSPC with independent observation of project procurement activities; provide fairness related comments to project officials as early as possible so that appropriate action could be taken to resolve the concerns before fairness was impacted; bring any potential fairness concerns to the attention of the Operational Integrity Sector if there is no timely resolution with project officials; and attest as to the fairness of the procurement process, including its execution.

To accomplish the objective we undertook the following activities:

  • became familiar with the project governance structure
  • reviewed the Request for proposal (RFP)
  • reviewed all amendments and addenda to the RFP including questions submitted by bidders and answers provided
  • reviewed the procedures to be used for the evaluation of responses and the guidance provided to the evaluation team
  • observed the evaluation of responses to the RFP to ensure that the specified evaluation and contractor selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process
  • observed the debriefing of unsuccessful bidders. (This activity will be reported on in an addendum to this report after any debriefings.)

Fairness monitor specific activities and findings

Fairness monitor activities and findings concerning the request for proposal development and phased posting of the request for proposal

The RFP was posted through two releases on the Website in order to provide bidders with the opportunity to commence preparation of their responses and thereby shorten the project schedule. Release 1 was posted on April 27, 2012 (Document 1). Release 2/Amendment 1 was posted on May 18, 2012 (Document 2).

During the period April 20, 2012 to September 4, 2012, the fairness monitor specialist (FM specialist) reviewed draft and final versions of Release 1 and Release 2 of the RFP, and amendments to the RFP, as they were progressively posted on the Department of National Defence CCV Project File Transfer Protocol (FTP) internet website. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

Amendments 2 to 11 (Documents 3 to 12) were posted as they occurred. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

Fairness monitor activities and findings concerning the evaluation phase

During the period August 17 to 30, 2012 we reviewed and provided fairness related comments on the consensus evaluation process and the Internal Proposal Evaluation Instruction & Procedures (IPEIP) document. Appropriate action was taken by project officials concerning our comments. During the period September 20, 2012 to March 4, 2013, we observed consensus evaluation meetings on the technical requirements and provided fairness related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On March 15, 2013 we reviewed the results of the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder as specified in the RFP. We were advised that the calculations and results had been double checked through independent peer reviews. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in the attached report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the close combat vehicle (CCV) project office.

Table summary

The following table includes a list of documents referred to in the report such as the Request for proposal (RFP), amendments, clarification letters, debriefing letters, etc. Each row is numbered, followed by the document title, then a document identifier such as a date or document number.

No. Document Additional information
1 RFP release 1 Posted April 27, 2012
2 RFP release 2/amendment 1 to RFP Posted May 18, 2012
3 Amendment 2 to RFP Posted May 24, 2012
4 Amendment 3 to RFP Posted June 8, 2012
5 Amendment 4 to RFP Posted June 22, 2012
6 Amendment 5 to RFP Posted July 6, 2012
7 Amendment 6 to RFP Posted July 6, 2012
8 Amendment 7 to RFP Posted July 19, 2012
9 Amendment 8 to RFP Posted July 30, 2012
10 Amendment 9 to RFP Posted August 8, 2012
11 Amendment 10 to RFP Posted August 21, 2012
12 Amendment 11 to RFP Posted August 29, 2012

Addendum to final report
February 16, 2016

Addendum to the fairness monitor final report dated April 10, 2013 concerning the close combat vehicle

This addendum to the fairness monitor final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase and the debriefing of bidders.

On December 13, 2013 we reviewed a letter that was sent to bidders on December 20, 2013 advising them that the CCV bid solicitation had been cancelled and that further information would be provided early in 2014. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 7, 2013 and January 13, 2014 we met with project officials and reviewed drafts of debriefing letters that were subsequently sent to bidders on January 24, 2014. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period January 29, 2014 to November 3, 2015 we reviewed communications from bidders requesting information concerning the evaluation of their bids and the information provided by project officials. These communications included a letter that was sent to all bidders on February 24, 2014 inviting them to identify any specific information that they would like to have concerning the evaluation of their bids. No fairness deficiencies were identified concerning the communications between project officials and bidders and the information provided to the bidders.

As of the date of this addendum, no further information had been requested by bidders.

Fairness monitor attestation of assurance

It is the professional opinion of the fairness monitor that the post evaluation activities, including the provision of written debriefing information, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner. 

Original signed by
Roger Bridges
President
Knowles Consultancy Services Inc.
FM Contractor’s Representative

Original signed by
Peter Woods
FM Team Leader

Original signed by
Bruce Maynard P. Eng.
FM Specialist

Date modified: