West Memorial Building asset integrity project

Fairness monitor final report, November 4, 2015

Addendum to final report, February 10, 2016

Submitted to Director, Fairness Monitoring Program

Submitted by PPI Consulting Limited
Centrepointe Chambers
86 Centrepointe Drive
Ottawa ON K2G 6B1

Telephone:
613‑567‑0000

Ottawa | Toronto | Atlantic Canada

West Memorial Building asset integrity projectPDF version (515KB)
Alternative formats and plug-ins

On this page

1. Introduction

PPI Consulting Limited was engaged by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) as a fairness monitor (FM) to observe the procurement process of a prime consultant for the west memorial building (WMB) asset integrity project.

We hereby submit this FM final report covering the activities and monitored observations of the FM for WMB prime consultant Request for Proposals (RFP), solicitation # EH900-160145/A.

PPI Consulting Limited is an independent third party with respect to this activity. We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities as described below in accordance with our mandate.

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

1.1 Background

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) intends to retain an architectural firm in the capacity of prime consultant, supported by a multidisciplinary team of sub-consultants, in the design and implementation of the WMB asset integrity project. The prime consultant is to prepare design and construction documents, as well as to provide administration services during the construction stage. Project approval was received in May 2015 for preparation of design and construction documents. Effective approval will be requested in 2016, in order to proceed with construction.

The purpose of this project is to remove designated substances and perform selective demolition in order to prepare the building for a future base building renovation and fit-up for use by PSPC and its client departments.

The acquisition of this architecture and engineering services contract has involved a public solicitation of bids via a one-stage Request for Proposals (RFP). The intent of the procurement process was to obtain proposals from technically qualified bidders based on their strategy for delivering services. Proposals were evaluated in accordance with established experience and performance criteria, resulting in technical scores for each bidder. Based on the current project schedule, the architecture and engineering services contract is planned to be awarded in late 2015.

2. Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive procurement process for the prime consultant for the WMB asset integrity project.

It is our professional opinion that the procurement process, including the evaluation of the proposals received in response to the prime consultant for the WMB asset integrity project, that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Original signed by
John Davis, CEO, PPI Consulting Limited

Original signed by
Ian Brennan, CSCMP,
FM Team Leader

Original signed by
Jocelyn Décoste, FM Specialist

3. Methodology

PPI Consulting Limited was engaged as a FM to observe the procurement process for the prime consultant for the WMB asset integrity project and to attest to the fairness, openness and transparency of this monitored activity.

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant draft and final documents, observed activities up to the end of the Request for Proposals (RFP) evaluation stage, identified fairness-related matters to the Contracting Authority (CA) and to the PSPC project team and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

4. Request for proposal process

4.1 Document review process

A formal document review process was established by PSPC and the project team. All draft documents were forwarded to the FM electronically and reviewed by the FM prior to being posted on the web site. When issues and/or concerns were identified by the FM, they were addressed to the satisfaction of the FM prior to being posted.

A total of six amendments to the RFP were issued.

All documents and other communications intended to be delivered to bidders were reviewed by the FM.

Observations (4.1)

The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP. All bidders were treated consistently and fairly. All observations and/or requests for clarification made by the FM were addressed by the contracting authority and the PSPC project team.

4.2 Question and answer process

A formal question and answer process was defined in the RFP. Questions were submitted via electronic mail to a defined address which was monitored daily by PSPC. The questions were modified by PSPC to remove references to a particular bidder. The anonymous questions were then forwarded to appropriate members of the PSPC project teams for response generation.

A final date for submitting questions was established in the RFP – seven calendar days prior to the bid closing date and time, which was September 18, 2015.

Questions and their associated responses were uniquely numbered and accumulated in a master list.

The master question and answer list was delivered to bidders on a periodic basis. On each delivery, the materials were published on Buy-and-Sell.

A total of 26 questions were received prior to the final question submission date. Responses to all 26 questions were delivered to the bidders.

All questions and responses were reviewed by the FM prior to posting. Feedback, where appropriate, was provided by the FM.

Observations (4.2)

The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP. All bidders were treated consistently and fairly. All observations and/or requests for clarification made by the FM were addressed by the contracting authority and the PSPC project team.

4.3 Site visit process

The RFP defined a process for allowing bidders to visit the WMB site to gather specific information which the bidder may require in order to prepare its proposal.

A protocol was established to govern the site visit process, to ensure fair and consistent treatment of all bidders. The major elements were as follows:

  • All bidders were provided the same notice of the period during which site visits would be permitted. The period was identified in the RFP and was not modified
  • All bidders were offered the same amount of time to visit the WMB site
  • PSPC representatives were asked to provide factual information only
  • A CD containing supplementary project related material was handed to bidder representatives
  • Bidder representatives were instructed that if they intended to rely on information learned during a site visit when preparing a proposal in response to the RFP, the Bidder should submit a request to confirm the information in the form of a question via the RFP enquiries process
  • Bidder representatives were restricted from asking questions or raising issues during a site visit relating to:
    • the procurement process
    • any procurement documents
    • previously submitted questions or provided answers
    • the RFP evaluation criteria

The site visit was held on August 12, 2015.

The site visit was attended and observed by the FM.

Observations (4.3)

The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP. All bidders were treated consistently and fairly. All observations and/or requests for clarification made by the FM were addressed by the contracting authority and the PSPC project team.

4.4 Evaluation phase process

PSPC received eight (8) proposals by the closing date and time on September 18, 2015. The FM attended the evaluator briefing and distribution of evaluation documents. The evaluation team was briefed on all issues related to conducting the evaluation in accordance with the stipulated selection process, including roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, document control, evaluator conduct, independent assessment, consensus process, schedule, and an explanation of clarification versus bid repair.

The following process was undertaken to evaluate the proposal:

  • Each evaluator conducted their own independent review and scoring of the proposal in their evaluator workbook
  • Once the independent reviews were completed, the evaluators participated in consensus meetings to agree to the score to be assigned to each rated requirement. The scores and the rationale for the scores were recorded in the master record
  • Evaluators recorded and initialled any changes agreed to during consensus in their individual workbooks
  • The FM confirmed with each member of the evaluation team that they were in agreement with the final consensus scores
  • All evaluators confirmed their agreement
  • The evaluation team signed the consensus record

The FM monitored the consensus session and confirms that the process was conducted appropriately in accordance with the process established in the RFP and in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Observations (4.4)

The evaluation process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP. All bidders were treated consistently and fairly. All observations and/or requests for clarification made by the FM were addressed by the contracting authority and the PSPC project team.

5. Reference documents

5.1 Request for proposal documents

Archived - Documents related to Solicitation Number EH900-160145/A are available on Buyandsell.gc.ca and/or through the project office. This process was used for the delivery of the RFP documents, amendments, and question and answer sets.

A total of six amendments to the RFP were created by Canada. All amendments were reviewed by the FM.

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. Documents Delivery date
1 Request for Proposal (RFP) July 31, 2015
2 RFP – Amendment 1 August 10, 2015
3 RFP – Amendment 2 August 21, 2015
4 RFP – Amendment 3 August 28, 2015
5 RFP – Amendment 4 September 2, 2015
6 RFP – Amendment 5 September 8, 2015
7 RFP – Amendment 6 September 11, 2015

6. Addendum to the final report
February 10, 2016

Addendum to fairness monitor final report dated November 4, 2015 for the procurement of the prime consultant for the west memorial building asset integrity project

Addendum to FM final report dated November 4, 2015 for the procurement of the prime consultant for the WMB asset integrity project.

This addendum to the FM final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase.

Contract award, communications and debriefing

The contract was awarded on November 23, 2015. Along with the notification of award, information was provided to all bidders on November 23, 2015 explaining the results of the evaluation of their proposals. Debriefings were held with all seven unsuccessful bidders. Two debriefings were held on December 8, 2015, four debriefings were held on December 17, 2015, and the final debriefing was held on February 5, 2016.

The notification of award and the results of the evaluation of each proposal were reviewed by the FM before being provided to each bidder. The FM attended all debriefings. The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the Request for Proposals. All Bidders were treated consistently and fairly.

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the notification of award, communications and debriefing of each bidder.

It is our professional opinion that the procurement process for the prime consultant for the WMB asset integrity project we observed was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Original signed by
John Davis, CEO, PPI Consulting Limited

Original signed by
Ian Brennan, CSCMP,
FM Team Leader

Original signed by
Jocelyn Décoste, FM Specialist

Date modified: