11. Replacement/Task Authorization resources—Assessor Guidance Document—Supply Arrangement Requirements

Document navigation for "11. Replacement/Task Authorization resources—Assessor Guidance Document—Supply Arrangement Requirements"

11.01 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report documentation

Evaluation report(s), covering the review of replacement/Task Authorization (TA) resources proposed or resources covered by a TA, including any clarifications requested and all notes taken during the evaluation, must be on file.

Assessment guidance and notes

If the Supplier is unable to provide the services of any specific resource identified in the contract, the Supplier must provide a replacement/TA resource with similar qualifications and experience as the original resource. The acceptance of the replacement/TA resource(s) must not affect the Supplier selection process.

If resources other than those stated in the contract are being offered under a Task Authorization (TA), the resource(s) proposed under the TA must have similar qualifications and experience as the resources as the original resource(s) offered.

The technical evaluation report forms the basis for the contract(s) issued. Without it, there is no way to verify whether if the replacement/TA resources proposed were evaluated in accordance with the terms set out in the bid solicitation document. The evaluation report must cover all replacement/TA resources offered and must include the evaluation conducted against the Flexible Grid (if applicable), all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and point rated technical evaluation criteria (if applicable).

Note

  1. Evaluation reports on file can be individual or consensus or both. There is no requirement that both need to be on file. A consensus evaluation report on file is ideal as the consensus evaluation report would resolve any differences between individual evaluation reports
  2. Mandatory requirements beyond those identified in the Flexible Grid represent additional mandatory requirements
  3. Requirements valued at less than $40k - In cases where the Contracting Authority invokes the "does not exceed $40k" rule and directs the requirement to a Supplier, there will still be mandatory criteria including, if applicable, the Flexible Grid. Therefore, the requirements stated in this element apply
11.01 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report documentation Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (documentation) Evaluation report or other supporting documentation (clarifications requested including the Supplier's response and notes taken by evaluators) for all replacement/TA resources offered is not on file and the Contracting Authority is unable to provide it. Failure to confirm that the replacement/TA resource(s) have similar qualifications and experience as the original resource(s) may result in work being performed by a Supplier who would have been deemed to be non-compliant based on the requirements of the original bid solicitation document. In such cases, the contract should be terminated and a new procurement process started. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-sections 10.7.27 and 12.3.1)
Observation (insufficient information) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because the contract does not include name of resource that will be performing the work. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance
Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

11.02 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report, mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part A)

Evaluation report must confirm whether or not replacement/TA resource(s) were evaluated against the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and the mandatory technical evaluation criteria.

Assessment guidance and notes

All evaluation reports on file must:

  • Confirm that each replacement/TA resource was evaluated against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements
  • State the score achieved by each replacement/TA resource offered as a result of the evaluation conducted against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable), and
  • Confirm whether or not compliance was determined against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements for each replacement/TA resource offered

The "Flexible Grid" is used for procurements that are based on the TSPS Task Based SA or procurements that are based on the ProServices (for non-IT categories). The "Flexible Grid" must be completed for each replacement/TA resource offered and once completed, the "Flexible Grid" provides a total score for each resource offered. This score is used to determine whether or not each replacement/TA resource offered meets the minimum score required for the category and level required. Assessors shall refer to the example provided in Supply Arrangement for Task-Based Professional Services Annex "A" Streams And Categories or the ProServices - Flexible Grid.

Please note the following scenarios:

  • Scenario #1:
    The sole mandatory requirement is compliance to the Flexible Grid. A statement that the replacement/TA resource(s) offered meet the requirements of the Flexible Grid is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must state, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., the total number of points assigned to each replacement/TA resource, how the total number of points was achieved, and whether or not each replacement/TA resource offered complies with the requirements of the Flexible Grid applicable to the category and level required.
  • Scenario #2:
    The sole mandatory requirement is a minimum amount experience specific to the level and category selected and the Flexible Grid does not apply. The evaluator(s) must state, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each replacement/TA resource offered complies with the minimum experience requirement applicable to the category and level required. A statement that the replacement/TA resource(s) meet the minimum experience requirements is sufficient in this case.
  • Scenario #3:
    The Flexible Grid does not apply to the requirement and there are multiple mandatory requirements. A blanket statement that the replacement/TA resources offered meet all the mandatory requirements is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each replacement/TA resource offered complies with each mandatory criterion.
  • Scenario #4:
    The Flexible Grid applies to the requirement and there are multiple mandatory requirements. A blanket statement that the replacement/TA resources met or did not meet the requirements of the Flexible Grid and all mandatory requirements or both is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each replacement/TA resource offered complies with requirements of the Flexible Grid applicable to the category and level required and each mandatory criterion.

Note

  1. The requirements stated in this element apply to competitive requirements and requirements where the "does not exceed $40k" rule has been invoked
  2. If the evaluation conducted indicates that a resource fails to meet a mandatory requirement, the evaluation process may, at the discretion of the Contracting Authority, stop at that point. For example, the original bid solicitation had 5 mandatory evaluation criteria. The replacement/TA resource offered by the Supplier is deemed to be non-compliant with the first mandatory criterion. Evaluation of the remaining 4 mandatory criteria is not required because the replacement/TA resource offered must comply with all mandatory criterion
  3. In cases where the Flexible Grid applies, the Contracting Authority should determine if the minimum score required in the Flexible Grid for the category and level required is met. If the minimum points required is not met, the replacement/TA resource offered must be deemed non-compliant and the Contracting Authority may stop the evaluation at that point
  4. In cases where the Contracting Authority invokes the "does not exceed $40k" rule and directs the requirement to a Supplier, a formal evaluation report is not required. An email that provides the information noted in this section is sufficient
11.02 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report, mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part A) Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The evaluation report on file does not address compliance to the requirements of the Flexible Grid for each category and level required. The absence of this information may result in work being performed by a Supplier who would have been deemed to be non-compliant based on the requirements of the original bid solicitation document. In such cases, the contract should be terminated and a new procurement process started. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The evaluation report on file does not clearly indicate that all mandatory requirements referenced in the bid solicitation document were evaluated. Refer rationale above.
Minor non-conformance Evaluation report fails to identify the name of the replacement/TA resources being evaluated. Supplier offered multiple replacement/TA resources for a single position or replacement/TA resources for multiple categories or levels or both. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the complete evaluation report is not on file. If the complete evaluation report was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 11.01: Replacement/TA Resource—Evaluation Reports Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

11.03 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report, mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part B)

The rationale for the compliance or non-compliance of each mandatory technical evaluation criterion must be documented and supportable.

Assessment guidance and notes

Evaluation reports must document the rationale used to determine compliance or non-compliance of each mandatory technical evaluation criterion. In files where the Flexible Grid is used, the evaluation report must provide the rationale for the points assigned to education, certifications and experience. Where minimum amounts of experience or minimum number of projects are required, the evaluation report must provide the rationale (e.g. page ref numbers, project ref numbers, etc.) used to determine compliance. In some cases, such as education and professional designations or certificates, the rationale is self-evident (e.g. copy of the certificate confirming the level of education achieved).

Simply stating that one or more mandatory technical evaluation criterion have been met or not met is insufficient. In all cases, the rationale used must be supportable.

Assessors shall not question the rationale provided by the evaluator regarding the mandatory criteria except in the following circumstances:

  • If the rationale is based on a mandatory technical evaluation criterion that is not consistent with the category or level selected, or
  • If there is an obvious error made by the evaluator, or
  • Other circumstances that cause the Assessor to be concerned that the decision made was done so in error

Under such circumstances, the Assessor should review only those resumes where the evaluation of the resource is being questioned.

Note

  1. There may be cases where the rationale for determining compliance of a replacement/TA resource was based on a requirement that was unclear. For example the minimum education level required was an undergraduate degree in business, accounting or "related field". The supplier offered a replacement/TA resource offered with an undergraduate degree in engineering. The decision made by the evaluator was based on the evaluator's opinion as to what was considered to be a related field. However, what was meant by a "related field" was not clear
  2. Compliance to mandatory work experience or other information contained in the resume of the replacement/TA resource(s) submitted may be validated through either an interview or by contacting the references provided in the resume(s) submitted. There may be cases where the résumé submitted by the supplier indicates compliance but the interview confirmed that the minimum amount of experience required was not met. This must be documented in the evaluation report
  3. If the bid document contains the certification clause for education, unless stipulated otherwise in the bid solicitation document, a statement in the technical proposal or the resume of the replacement/TA resource(s) offered that the replacement/TA resource(s) have obtained a specific level of education, professional designation or certificate is sufficient. Bidders are not required to provide a copy of the diploma, professional designation or certificate
  4. Unless stipulated otherwise in the bid solicitation document, if the bid solicitation document required that Suppliers provide proof of education, certifications, professional designation, etc. with their bid, the Contracting Authority cannot request that the Supplier provide missing information after bid closing
11.03 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report, mandatory technical evaluation criteria (part B) Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The rationale for compliance of the replacement/TA resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was not documented. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The rationale for compliance of the replacement/TA resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was documented but not supportable. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to. Therefore, determinations that a mandatory requirement was met or not met must be supportable. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Minor non-conformance The decision regarding the compliance of the replacement/TA resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements stated in the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements, was done in error. However, the error(s) would not have affected the outcome of the bid evaluation process as, overall, the resource(s) offered failed to comply with at least one mandatory criterion. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (other) The decision regarding the compliance of the replacement/TA resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), with the mandatory requirements (other than the Flexible Grid), was based on criteria described in the requirement that was unclear. There was insufficient information available to the Assessor to raise a minor or major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of one or more evaluation reports are not on file. If the evaluation report was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 11.01: Replacement/TA Resource - Evaluation Report Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

11.04 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part A)

Evaluation report must indicate the points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion, sub-total score (if applicable) and the total score (if applicable) for each replacement/TA resource evaluated.

Assessment guidance and notes

The evaluation report, for each replacement/TA resource, must state:

  • The points assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion
  • Sub-total score or total score (if applicable)

Note

If there is a minimum score required for each point rated criterion, and the evaluation conducted indicates that the replacement/TA resource fails to meet the minimum score for any point rated criterion, the evaluation process may, at the discretion of the Contracting Authority, stop at that point. For example, the original bid solicitation has 5 point rated evaluation criteria. The replacement resource/TA offered fails to meet the minimum score required for the first point rated criterion and is deemed to be non-compliant. Evaluation of the remaining 4 point rated evaluation criteria is not required because the replacement/TA resource offered must comply with the minimum score required for all point rated criterion.

11.04 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part A) Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (other) Points were not assigned to one or more point rated technical evaluation criterion for the replacement/TA resource(s) evaluated. Failure to assign points to any point rated criterion calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Major non-conformance—policy (other) A sub-total or total score for one or more replacement/TA resources evaluated was stated but, based on the score assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion, either the sub-total score or the total score or both could not be recreated. Failure to determine the sub-total or total score calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)

Note: This finding does not apply in situations where the total score could not be recreated because a score has not been assigned to one or more rated criterion. In such cases, a Major non-conformance (specifically the one above) would already have been raised.

Minor non-conformance The total score for replacement/TA resource(s) evaluated was not stated in the evaluation report but a score was assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion. Additional documentation on file confirmed the total score arrived at, which was verified by the Assessor. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the evaluation report is not on file. If the evaluation report was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 11.01: Replacement/TA Resource—Evaluation Reports Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a major non-conformance.

11.05 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part B)

Points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion must be done so in accordance with the scoring guide stated in the bid solicitation document.

Assessment guidance and notes

The scoring guide outlined in the original bid solicitation describes how points are to be assigned. Various methods for assigning points include, but are not restricted to, the following:

  • Points per project or assignment—Points are typically assigned based on each project or assignment. Unless specified otherwise, partial points cannot be assigned
  • Points for experience—Points are typically assigned for ranges of experience levels. For example, 5 points for 5-7 years of experience, 10 points for 7+ to 10 years of experience, 20 points for 10+ years of experience
  • Points for a professional designation or certification—Points may be assigned for a relevant certification. For example, 15 points may be assigned for a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification
  • Points for education—Points can be assigned based on the degree. For example, 10 points may be assigned for a graduate degree, 25 points for a doctoral degree

In all cases, evaluators must follow the guide provided. For example, under a) and b) above, if 10 points are assigned per project, then an evaluator can only assign values of 0 or 10 (nothing in between). Under b) above, the evaluator can only assign 5, 10 or 20 points.

11.05 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part B) Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (other) Points assigned to one or more point rated technical evaluation criterion were not done so in accordance with the scoring guide stated in the original bid solicitation document. Failure to assign points in accordance with the scoring guide described in the bid solicitation document calls into question the validity of the evaluation conducted. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Observation (other) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because the evaluation report does not clearly indicate the points assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion. There is insufficient information for the Assessor to assign a Major or Minor non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the evaluation report is not on file. If the evaluation report was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 11.01: Replacement/TA Resource—Evaluation Reports Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

11.06 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part C)

Evaluation report must state the rationale for the points assigned to each specific point rated technical evaluation criterion and determine compliance to the minimum total score or minimum score for each point rated requirement as applicable.

Assessment guidance and notes

Under the selection methodologies involving point rated requirements, the manner in which the points are assigned can cause:

  • A replacement/TA resource to be declared non-responsive (i.e. response referring to that replacement/TA resource could not be considered for contract award) as a result of failing to meet the minimum total score or sub-total required, or
  • A replacement/TA resource to be declared non-responsive for failure to meet the minimum score for each point rated criterion, or
  • A Supplier to not be issued a contract because the total score assigned to the replacement/TA resource(s) evaluated was too low resulting in a higher cost per point, lower total score based on a combination of technical merit and price, or lower total score based solely on technical merit

Therefore, evaluation reports must document the rationale used to determine the number of points assigned to each point-rated technical evaluation criterion. Simply stating the number of points assigned to each point-rated evaluation criterion is insufficient. In all cases, the rationale used to determine the score assigned must be documented and supportable. In some cases, the rationale for the points assigned (or not assigned as the case may be) is evident even though there is no documented rationale. For example, if points are assigned based on level of education 5 points for high school diploma, 10 points for undergraduate degree, 20 points for Master degree), and 20 points are assigned to a replacement/TA resource who has proven that he/she holds a Master degree, then the rationale is evident. Assessors shall not question the evaluator's rationale for the points assigned except in the following circumstances:

  • If the rationale is based on a point-rated technical evaluation criterion that is not consistent with the category or level selected, or
  • If there is an obvious error made by the evaluator, or
  • Other circumstances that cause the Assessor to be concerned that the decision made was done so in error

The Assessor shall review only those resumes that meet the above criteria.

Note

  1. There may be cases where the résumé describes experience gained that is applied to specific point rated technical evaluation criterion but the interview confirmed that the experience, described in the resume, did not meet the requirements required for points to be assigned. This must be documented in the evaluation report
  2. There may be cases where the rationale for points assigned was based on a requirement that was unclear. For example the minimum education level required to achieve a specific number of points was an undergraduate degree in business, accounting or "related field". A replacement/TA resource was assigned zero points because their undergraduate degree was in marketing, which was considered by the evaluator to not be a related field. However, what was meant by an undergraduate degree in a "related field" was not clear. In such cases, an Observation shall be raised
11.06 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - evaluation report, point rated technical evaluation criteria (part C) Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The documented rationale for the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criteria for replacement/TA resource(s) was not supportable. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be strictly adhered to and that the bid criteria be applied equally to all bidders. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Major non-conformance—policy (other) The evaluation report, for replacement/TA resource(s) offered by Supplier(s), was missing the rationale for the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criteria. Failure to document the rationale makes it impossible for the Assessor to determine whether or not the evaluation criteria were strictly adhered to.
Minor non-conformance Rationale in support of the points assigned to point rated technical evaluation criterion was in error. However, the error was minor in nature and would not have affected the score assigned. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a Major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Observation (other) The documented rationale for the points assigned was based on criteria described in the requirement that was unclear. There is insufficient information for the Assessor to assign a non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the evaluation report is not on file. If the evaluation report was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 11.01: Replacement/TA Resource—Evaluation Reports Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation response from one or more Suppliers are not on file. If one or more responses to the bid solicitation document is not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 5.01: Bid Solicitation Responses—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the bid solicitation document is not on file. If the bid solicitation document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 3.01: Bid Solicitation—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

11.07 Replacement/Task Authorization resource—security clearance verification

Validity of the security clearance of each replacement/TA resource must be confirmed and documented before commencement of the assignment.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority must verify that the security clearance of each replacement/TA resource offered is valid not only at the time the assignment begins but also during the period of the entire assignment. Documentation confirming the security clearance of each resource must include: name of the replacement/TA resource, current security level, current status (validity) of the replacement/TA resource's security clearance and date the security clearance expires or date that it became valid. Refer Assessment Guidance and Notes section under element 8.06: Security Clearance.

Security Clearance Duplication:

The security clearance of a resource remains with that replacement/TA resource. However, the security clearance of an individual may be duplicated among multiple organizations providing the following criteria have been met:

  • The security clearance is still valid
  • The security clearance is not due for updating, and
  • The organization requesting the duplication is registered and in good standing in the Contract Security Program (CSP).

Supplier Security Clearance:

A replacement/TA resource can only hold as high a security clearance with a Supplier as that Supplier has. If Contract Security Program (CSP), PSPC confirms the validity of a replacement/TA resource's security clearance at a specific level, then the Supplier must also have the same level of security. Therefore, confirmation of the validity of a replacement/TA resource's security clearance with a specific Supplier is acceptable proof of the security clearance held by that Supplier.

Note

  1. Certifications made by the Contractor regarding the security clearance of the replacement/TA resource offered are not acceptable. Information pertaining to the security clearance of the replacement/TA resource must come from CSP, PSPC or the Contracting Authority's security unit
  2. The requirements stated in this element apply to competitive procurements and those that invoke the "does not exceed $40k" rule
  3. TB Security policy (section 6.1.6) requires that the security screening be performed before commencement of the work
11.07 Replacement/Task Authorization resource - security clearance verification Potential findings
Type Description Rationale
Major non-conformance—policy (documentation) Contract file contains no documentation that confirms validity of security clearance of the replacement/TA resource(s) named in the contract. Contracting Authority is unable to provide the required documentation. TB Policy on Government Security requires that individuals be security screened at the appropriate level before starting the work (Contravention of TB Policy on Gov't Security sub-section 6.1.6)
Major non-conformance—policy (documentation) Contract file contains documentation that confirms the "pending" status of the transfer or duplication of the security clearance. However, the contract file does not contain confirmation of the successful transfer or duplication of the security clearance. Documentation on file must state the successful transfer or duplication of the replacement/TA resource's security clearance. The absence of such documentation makes it impossible for the Assessor to confirm that validity of the security clearance for the resource(s). (Contravention of TB Policy on Gov't Security sub-section 6.1.6)
Major non-conformance—policy (other) Security clearance of the replacement/TA resource offered was confirmed as not being valid before the commencement of the work. Refer rationale above.
Major non-conformance—policy (other) Security clearance of the replacement/TA resource covered by the contract was confirmed as being lower (e.g. Reliability) than that stated in the contract (e.g. Secret). Response offering the replacement/TA resource in question was deemed to compliant incorrectly. TB Contracting Policy requires that evaluation factors be established beforehand and be strictly adhered to. (Contravention of TB Contracting Policy sub-section 10.7.27)
Major non-conformance—procedural Security clearance of the replacement/TA resource offered was confirmed as being valid before the commencement of the work. However, validity period of the security clearance expired before completion of the work and there is no documentation on file that confirms that the security clearance validity period was extended. Allowing a replacement/TA resource to continue working without a valid security clearance is no different than the replacement/TA resource not having a security clearance in the first place.
Major non-conformance—procedural Documentation on file confirms that the security clearance of the replacement/TA resource is valid but fails to provide the information required to determine the expiry date of the security clearance. Documentation on file must state either the expiration date of the security clearance or the date that the clearance was issued and that it is currently valid. The absence of this information makes it impossible for the Assessor to confirm that validity of the security clearance for the Supplier or replacement/TA resource(s).
Minor non-conformance Security clearance of the replacement/TA resource covered by the contract was not validated until after commencement of the work. Failure to comply with the requirement does not meet the criteria applicable to a major non-conformance.

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a Major non-conformance.

Observation (documentation) Compliance to this requirement cannot be determined because a copy of the contract is not on file. If the contract document was not on file, then a Major non-conformance would already have been raised against a previous element (i.e. element 8.01: Contract—Documentation).

Note: Recurrence of this finding may result in the issuance of a non-conformance.

Document navigation for "11. Replacement/Task Authorization resources—Assessor Guidance Document—Supply Arrangement Requirements"

Date modified: