Operational Clothing and Footwear Consolidated Contract

Attestation of assurance

The fairness monitor (FM) hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement below concerning the Operational Clothing and Footwear Consolidated Contract (OCFC2) procurement process.

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

Original signed by:

Project requirement

HKA Global (Canada), Inc. was engaged on June 19, 2013 as the FM to observe the competitive procurement process for the OCFC2. This competitive procurement process is being undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for the Department of National Defence (DND) through 11 letters of interest (LOI) numbers W8486-137549/A to W8486-137549/K and request for proposal (RFP) number W8486-206245/A. HKA Global (Canada), Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We reviewed all the information provided and observed or monitored all relevant activities.

We hereby submit our final report on the OCFC2 project covering our activities chronologically from the posting of the first LOI on buyandsell.gc.ca in February 2013 and the posting of 10 additional LOIs, through the posting of the RFP on buyandsell.gc.ca and the completion of the evaluation of bids received and the basis of selection of the recommended contractor on February 22, 2022.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, including any relevant findings from the activities undertaken.

Fairness monitoring engagement and findings

The procurement process included 11 LOIs which have the same solicitation number differing only by a designator letter at the end of the solicitation number. For example, the first LOI, number W8486-137549/A, is referred to in this report as LOI/A and the second LOI, number W8486-137549/B is referred to as LOI/B.

In this section

• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2013 and 2014 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2015 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2016 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2017 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2018 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2019 to 2021 time period
• Fairness monitor activities and findings during evaluation of proposals

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2013 and 2014 time period

On September 11, 2013, we reviewed W8486-137549/A LOI/A and amendment 1 to the LOI that had been posted on buyandsell.gc.ca in February 2013, prior to the commencement of fairness monitoring activities. We also reviewed a summary of the results obtained from responses to the LOI.

On December 24, 2013, we reviewed LOI/B posted on buyandsell.gc.ca announcing that an industry day would be held, followed by one-on-one meetings. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On January 27, 2014, we observed the industry day. A full description of the scope and procurement plan for OCFC2 were provided and questions were answered. Changes from the information previously provided in LOI/A were highlighted. On January 27, 2014 and January 28, 2014, we observed 9 one-on-one meetings with interested firms. Fairness- related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2015 time period

On June 2, 2015, we reviewed draft versions of a revised value proposition and industrial technology benefits (VP/ITB) document. On November 5, 2015, we reviewed LOI/C which provided the proposed VP/ITB document. The purpose of the LOI was to obtain feedback from industry on the VP/ITB requirement in order to validate Canada’s analysis of industry capabilities. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On November 9, November 30, and December 4, 2015, we reviewed amendments 1, 2 and 3 to LOI/C. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2016 time period

During the period July 30 to August 8, 2016, we reviewed LOI/D which attached a draft version of a proposed RFP and requested comments from interested firms. We provided fairness-related comments on the draft RFP and appropriate action was taken.

On June 27, July 18, August 5 and 8, 2016, we reviewed amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to LOI/D. We provided fairness-related comments on LOI/D and its amendments and appropriate action was taken.

On August 9, 2016, we reviewed a presentation on VP/ITB requirements that had been prepared for background at the upcoming one-on-one meetings. On August 11, 2016, we observed two one-on-one meetings that provided an opportunity for interested firms to ask questions to better understand the document and to provide verbal comments. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

During the period September 5 to 8, 2016, we reviewed responses received from interested firms on the draft RFP attached to LOI/D.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2017 time period

On January 4, 2017, we reviewed LOI/E which provided revised VP/ITB documentation for the upcoming RFP and requested responses from industry to specific questions and to raise any concerns that industry had on the draft RFP. On January 5 and 21, 2017, we reviewed amendments 1 and 2 to the LOI. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified with LOI/E or its amendments.

During the period January 23 to January 27, 2017, we observed 5 one-on-one meetings with interested firms. The same VP/ITB presentation was given in each meeting. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On February 13, 2017, we reviewed submissions received from industry responding to the LOI/E. On April 27, 2017, we reviewed LOI/F which provided answers to questions raised by respondents in their responses to LOI/E. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On October 2, 2017, we provided fairness-related comments on a question from the contracting authority on the possibility of additional one-on-one meetings to better understand industry views. Appropriate action was taken.

On November 20, 2017, we reviewed LOI/G. The objective of the LOI was to obtain feedback from industry on a change to the minimum Canadian content requirements. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified. On November 27, and December 17 and 20, 2017, we reviewed amendments 1, 2, and 3 to the LOI. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2018 time period

On March 6, 2018, we reviewed a summary of the industry feedback received as a result of LOI/G. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the 2019 to 2021 time period

On February 28 and March 7 and 12, 2019, we reviewed a draft of the statement of work for the RFP. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On February 26, 2019, we reviewed LOI/H. The purpose of the LOI was to create an updated working group of interested firms. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On April 1, 2019, we reviewed a package to be sent to the members of the working group providing the proposed VP/ITB evaluation criteria and VP/ITB terms and conditions sections of the RFP. It also included questions to which members of the working group were invited to respond. On April 16, 2019, we reviewed questions received from members of the working group and proposed answers. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On May 10, 2019, we reviewed a draft notice to be forwarded to members of the working group inviting them to an industry day and to have one-on-one meetings. On May 13, 2019, we reviewed LOI/I. The objective was to provide members of the working group with an overview of current OCFC2 plans and schedule and to invite feedback to clarify and identify issues and concerns. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 14, 2019, we reviewed more questions received from members of the working group and proposed answers. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On May 27, 2019, we observed the industry day. A presentation was provided giving an overview of the OCFC2 requirement and submission requirements for the upcoming RFP as well as a presentation on VP/ITB requirements. On May 27 and 28, 2019, we observed 4 one-on-one meetings. An opportunity was provided for each firm to view and take pictures of samples of current operational clothing and footwear items. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On June 14, 2019, we reviewed LOI/J that provided copies of the presentation slides from the May 27, 2019 industry day. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On July 5, 2019, we reviewed LOI/K that informed interested parties that there would be a delay in the release of the final RFP. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On August 22, 2019, we reviewed a letter forwarded by the contracting authority to the members of the working group explaining that changes had been made in the RFP involving security requirements which had led to the delay in the release of the RFP. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

The RFP was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on August 28, 2019.

On August 29, 2019, we reviewed the RFP as posted. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On September 10, 2019, we reviewed amendment 1 to the RFP. The purpose of the amendment was to invite interested firms to a sample viewing of OCFC2 items including sealed samples and textiles. The sample viewing was held from September 23 to October 4, 2019. We visited the viewing room on September 23, 2019. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On October 29, 2019, we reviewed amendment 2 to the RFP. The purpose of the amendment was to invite interested firms to an industry day. On November 20, 2019, we observed the industry day. The presentations provided included an overview of the inventory transfer requirements and a description of the DND Defence Resource Management Information System to which the OCFC2 contractor must interface. On November 26, 2019, we reviewed amendment 3 to the RFP which provided the slide deck from the industry day. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On November 28, 2019, we reviewed amendment 4 to the RFP. The purpose of the amendment was to provide the questions asked during the November 20, 2019 industry day with answers, along with questions submitted in accordance with the RFP (Q1-Q23) and answers thereto. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On December 16, 2019, we reviewed amendment 5 to the RFP which provided answers to more questions (Q24-Q53) submitted by interested firms. On February 12, 2020, we reviewed amendment 6 to the RFP. Among other things, this amendment changed the closing date, and responded to more questions (Q54-Q77). Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On March 26, 2020, we reviewed amendment 7 to the RFP which, among other things, changed the closing date, and responded to more questions (Q78-Q81). On March 27, 2020, we reviewed amendment 8 to the RFP which confirmed and clarified the closing date. On June 11, 2020, we reviewed amendment 9 to the RFP which responded to more questions (Q82-Q86). Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On December 7, 2020, we reviewed amendment 10 to the RFP. Among other things, this amendment provided a new closing date, provided advance notice of a virtual industry day and responded to more questions (Q87-Q88). No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On December 22, 2020, we reviewed amendment 11 to the RFP. This amendment provided an invitation to the virtual industry day to be held on January 19, 2021.

On January 13, 2021, we reviewed amendment 12 to the RFP which modified the time for the industry day and provided joining instructions. On January 19, 2021, we monitored the industry day. The purpose of the industry day was to provide an update on the project and an opportunity for interested firms to ask questions. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On March 8, 2021, we reviewed amendment 13 to the RFP. This amendment amended the closing date, provided the presentation deck from the virtual industry day, amended the statement of work and responded to more questions (Q89-Q98). No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On May 13, 2021, we reviewed amendment 14 to the RFP which among other things, amended the closing date, and responded to questions (Q99-Q133). No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On May 26, 2021, we reviewed amendment 15 to the RFP and on July 16, 2021, we reviewed amendment 16 to the RFP which among other things, amended the closing date, and responded to questions (Q134-Q141). No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On July 23, 2021, we reviewed amendment 17 to the RFP which responded to Q142. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

The RFP closed on August 19, 2021.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during evaluation of proposals

On August 31, 2021, we monitored the evaluation kick-off meeting. Three proposals had been received. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 18, 2021, we were advised by the contracting authority that the evaluation of proposals had already taken place up to, and including, the evaluation of mandatory technical requirements and the completion of the phased bid compliance process (PBCP). The contracting authority advised us that all information that we wished to review with respect to the evaluation of proposals would be provided.

We were subsequently advised as follows that the evaluation of bids activities had taken place during September and October 2021:

• phase 1 consisted of a complete review of the financial component of each bid, to ensure that no information was missing. Of the 3 bids, only 1 bid was found to be responsive to the satisfaction of Canada while the remaining 2 bids were determined to be non-compliant. Both bidders were notified and given up to 5 days to respond and provide the missing information. The bidders responded with additional information in the time allotted and therefore were found compliant to phase 1 and move on to phase 2
• phase 2 consisted of an assessment of the mandatory technical requirements, to determine whether the bids demonstrated compliance with the mandatory requirements outlined in the RFP. Of the 3 bids, 1 proposal did not meet the mandatory technical requirements and was found to be non-compliant. As a result, a compliance assessment report (CAR) was provided to the bidder detailing the mandatory requirements that they failed to meet and provided them up to 5 business days to submit additional information. The bidder responded with additional information in the time allotted, however, the evaluation team determined that the additional information did not meet the requirements of the mandatory criteria. As such, the bid was considered non-compliant and did not move on to the next phase of the evaluation process

On October 18, 2021, due to the fact that we had not monitored the evaluation of the mandatory technical requirements and the application of the PBCP, we requested a detailed presentation of the evaluation of bids that had taken place.

On October 19, 2021, we monitored a presentation of the results of the consensus evaluation of the mandatory requirements of the proposals received including the application of the PBCP. No fairness deficiencies were identified. On the same day we monitored the consensus evaluation of part 1 rated criteria. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 20, 2021, we monitored the consensus evaluation of parts 2 and 3 rated criteria. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 22, 2021, we carried out a preliminary review of the evaluation documentation and CARs and on October 25, 2021 we carried out a detailed review of the evaluation documents and the CARs. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On December 9, 2021, we monitored the consensus evaluation of a bidder’s response to a CAR related to the rated technical requirements. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

As a result of the evaluation of all bidders’ responses to the technical requirements and the application of the PBCP, only 1 bidder was found to be compliant. On December 13, 2021, and January 10, 2022, we monitored the consensus evaluation of the only compliant bidder’s responses to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada requirements. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On February 11, 2022, PWGSC provided us with a summary of the process that was used to select the recommended bidder. On February 15 and 22, 2022, the contracting authority provided us with further details on the selection of the recommended bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified. The contracting authority also provided us with a summary of the action taken to ensure that the recommended bidder was providing value for money to Canada.

Reference documents

Documents related to solicitation numbers W8486-137549 (A to K), and number W8486-206245/A are available on CanadaBuys or through the OCFC2 project office.

Addendum to the final report

January 5, 2023

Addendum to the final report dated March 4, 2022, for the OCFC2.

This addendum covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase including contact award and debriefings.

On June 23, 2022, the contracting authority advised us that 1 of the 3 bidders had advised the contracting authority (CA) that it had withdrawn its bid and that, accordingly, no regret letter or debriefing would be provided to the bidder.

On September 13, 2022, the contracting authority advised us that a contract had been awarded on September 12, 2022 to a bidder and provided us with a copy of the award letter. We reviewed the award letter and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On November 7, 2022, the CA advised us as follows:

• the successful bidder had requested a debriefing and one was provided verbally and a written debriefing was provided on September 23, 2022. Subsequently, at our request, on January 4, 2023 we were provided with a copy of the written debriefing. No fairness deficiencies were identified
• the bidder that had withdrawn its bid had requested a debriefing on the VP/ITB portion of its bid but that Canada had not decided whether a debriefing would be provided. Canada subsequently confirmed that, since the bidder had withdrawn its bid, it was not entitled to receive a debriefing. However, as a courtesy, Canada decided to answer verbally a question concerning the company’s bid. No fairness deficiencies were identified
• a third bidder had not requested a debriefing and the CA had not yet sent it a regret letter because Canada had decided not to provide further communications concerning the contract until a public announcement had occurred. However since the public announcement had now been made, a regret letter would be sent

On December 9, 2022, the CA provided us with a copy of the proposed regret letter to be sent to the third unsuccessful bidder and advised that no further feedback would be provided to the bidder. We reviewed the regret letter and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement below concerning the OCFC2.

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

Original signed by: