Centralized professional services system
Assessor guidance for supply arrangement requirements

Assessment guidance and notes

When determining the value of the SA requirement for the purpose of determining whether or not ProServices applies, the Contracting Authority must include all option periods (if applicable), all applicable taxes, travel and living expenses, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

For requirements valued at $40,000 (inclusive of all options, amendments, applicable taxes, travel and living expenses, etc.) or less, the Contracting Authority may invoke the "does not exceed $40K" rule in accordance with Government Contract Regulations (GCRs). The Contracting Authority would still be required to perform a search but would have the option of selecting one Supplier from the search results. Contracting Authorities who wish to invoke any of the other 3 reasons for not soliciting bids under the GCRs may not use the Methods of Supply (MoSs) within the CPSS ePortal.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority must print and save an electronic copy of the initial and final search results and place it on file. Without a copy of the search results on file, the Assessor will not be able to confirm that the CPSS ePortal common business rules have been applied. Searches conducted in the CPSS ePortal are done in two parts—the initial search results titled "Name of Methods of Supply (MoS) Supply Arrangement (SA) Search Filtering" which is a list of all potential suppliers that meet the search criteria specified and the final search results titled "(Name of MoS) Final Search Results" which is the list of suppliers that are being invited to submit a bid. For requirements valued at over North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Contracting Authority is required to place the initial and final search results on the contract file. For all requirements, the Contracting Authority is required to place the initial and final search results on the contract file.

The following information must be provided in the initial and final search results:

• Name of MoS
• Supplier legal names
• Search criteria used (category or categories, level, number of resources, region, supplier security clearance, supplier document safeguarding, etc.
• Date search was conducted
• Purchaser information

Assessment guidance and notes

Assessor must determine whether or not the category (ies) and level(s) selected in the search criteria are consistent with the work described in the statement of work (SOW).

Assessment guidance and notes

A complete copy of the bid solicitation document, including but not limited to the Statement of Work (SOW), category/categories and levels required, security requirement, mandatory and point rated criteria, basis of selection, certifications, Flexible Grid (if applicable), resultant contract clauses etc. must be on file. Without a copy of the complete bid solicitation document, it is not possible for the Assessor to confirm the information sent to the Supplier.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Assessor must verify that the category/categories, level of expertise, Supplier Security Clearance, Supplier Document Safeguarding and Region/Metropolitan Area stated in the bid solicitation document matches criteria used to conduct the search.

The following applies to Directed Requirements only:

• If the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level stated in the supplier's CPSS ePortal profile are higher than that stated in the bid solicitation, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The rationale being that the supplier selected would have been returned in the search results in either case
• If the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level stated in the supplier's CPSS ePortal profile is lower than that stated in the bid solicitation, a non-conformance will be raised if there is no documentation on file that confirms what the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level was at the time the bid solicitation was issued

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitations must provide Suppliers with a minimum period within which to respond. The minimum bid response times were developed, in consultation with suppliers and department users, to allow suppliers sufficient time to locate resources capable of completing the work. Contracting Authorities who provide a response time that is less than the requisite minimum must have written justification on file. Justification would be established through consultations with the client and possibly the identified suppliers.

When calculating the response period, the date shown on the bid solicitation document or the date the bid solicitation document was sent to the Suppliers (if different than the date shown on the bid solicitation document) is not counted. Where there are discrepancies with the date on both documents (for example date on bid solicitation document is January 7, 2020 and date of email is January 8, 2020), the date the bid solicitation document was sent to the Suppliers shall be used to determine compliance to this requirement. Where the bid solicitation document does not state the response date, the date that Suppliers are sent the bid solicitation document shall be assumed to represent the bid solicitation date and shall be used to determine compliance to this requirement.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitation documents must contain, as a minimum but not limited to, the following information:

• Standard Instructions:
  • Bid submission instructions (address for submission of bids, bid closing date and time);
• Bid preparation instructions
• Bid evaluation procedures
• Basis of selection
• Financial capability (if applicable)
• Certifications
• Security Clause (if applicable)
• Complete Security Requirement Check List (SRCL), except for part D—refer note below
• Resulting contract clauses (including Task authorization (TA) clauses, travel, etc. if applicable)
• Complete description of the work (that is, SOW)

Bid solicitation documents for all MoSs, with the exception of ProServices and Temporary Help Services (THS), must use the "High Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (HC)" bid solicitation template available in the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual. Bid solicitation documents issued using the ProServices MoS must use the "Medium Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (MC)" bid solicitation template available in the SACC Manual. THS must use one of the three (3) templates available on the THS Web site. The HC and MC and THS bid solicitation templates contain clauses that must appear in the bid solicitation document and clauses that are only required in specific circumstances. When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not all required information as identified above including all appropriate clauses have been incorporated into the bid solicitation document.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitation documents must contain, as a minimum but not limited to, the following information:

• Certifications (if applicable)
• Security Clause (if applicable)
• Completed SRCL (if applicable)
• Resulting contract clauses
• Complete description of the work (that is, SOW)

Assessment guidance and notes

The Flexible Grid applies to requirements that use either the TSPS Task Supply Arrangement or requirements for categories under Streams 8 to 12 (Non-IT Professional Services) of the ProServices MoSs only. The Flexible Grid indicates the minimum level of points required by each proposed resource to qualify for each Level of Expertise (that is, Junior, Intermediate or Senior). Various amounts of points are given for relevant education, professional certification and relevant experience. The bid solicitation document must contain the following related to use of the Flexible Grid:

• Statement indicating that the Bidder must demonstrate that each proposed resource offered meets the minimum number of points required for the relevant level and category described in the Flexible Grid(s)
• A copy of the relevant Flexible Grid(s) or a reference to the Annex "A" Requirement of the TSPS Task Supply Arrangement

Assessment guidance and notes

Mandatory evaluation criteria identify the minimum requirements that are essential to the successful completion of the work. Significant discrepancies between the mandatory criteria, the SOW and the Flexible Grid (if applicable) suggest that:

• The work described in the SOW is inaccurate, or
• The Flexible grid (if applicable), specifically the category (ies) or stream(s) and level (if applicable) selected are inaccurate, or
• There is the appearance of an attempt to manipulate the procurement process

Discrepancies between the SOW, specifically the level of each category, and the mandatory requirements would invalidate the search conducted. In such a case, there is a high probability that, if the level of the category (ies) used matched the mandatory requirements, the search results would have been materially different. For example, the bid solicitation document required an Intermediate level (or level 2) Application/Software Architect. The experience required in the bid solicitation document was a minimum of 15 years. However, the experience requirement for this category at the specified level is 5 to less than 10 years experience. Requiring a minimum of 15 years would be consistent with the specified category at the Senior level (or level 3).

Assessment guidance and notes

Compliance of each mandatory technical requirement must be based on a simple "yes" or "no" answer. If judgement is required by the evaluator(s) to determine compliance then the bid solicitation document should provide guidelines so that Suppliers will know how their response will be evaluated. For example, the bid solicitation document requires a secondary school diploma. This requirement is clear, either the person has it or they do not. An example of a criterion that would require judgement is the requirement for a secondary school diploma or an acceptable combination of education, training and experience. In such cases, the acceptable combination education, training and experience must be specified.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the minimum requirement for experience, knowledge required, minimum number of projects, minimum project duration, etc. will force evaluators to deem a resource compliant if, for example, that resource has one day of experience in a required area. Statements such as "experience in" and "significant experience in" do not identify a specific minimum amount of experience and as such, allow for discretionary evaluation.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the recentness of the experience or project will force evaluators to deem a resource compliant if, for example, the experience was gained or the project was completed 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

The Contracting Authority must, for each mandatory technical requirement state how compliance will be determined. For criterion related to projects and experience, compliance can be determined via the resume submitted. However, compliance to criterion such as security clearance, professional designation, education, etc. should be substantiated through submission of objective evidence such as certificates, copy of diploma, etc. In the absence of a clear statement as to how compliance will be determined, the Contracting Authority will be forced to accept a simple statement from the Supplier as proof. In such situations an Observation shall be cited including a note in the comments stating that the assertion made by the Supplier would have to be accepted.

Assessment guidance and notes

Mandatory technical evaluation criteria must not be construed as unduly restricting the ability of a Supplier to respond to the bid solicitation. Examples of such a situation includes, but is not limited to:

• Requiring a minimum amount of experience within a very short time period (for example 3 years within the last 4 years) given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• An unreasonable number of mandatory requirements given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• Experience required is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (for example requirement is for category 1.1 - Human Resources Consultant, level of expertise - junior. Minimum amount of relevant experience required is 10 years)
• Certificate(s) required is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (for example requirement is for category 2.15 Facilitator Consultant, level of expertise - junior. Certificate required Master Facilitator Certification)

  Note: Master Facilitator Certification is a higher certification level than Certified Professional Facilitator.

• Specific government related experience where the work must have been performed in a particular area within the federal government (for example requirement is for category 3.2 Project Manager, level of expertise—intermediate with a minimum 10 years experience within a specific project office in National Defence)

Assessment guidance and notes

Point rated technical evaluation criteria are used to assist in determining which bid solicitation response represents the best value. Significant discrepancies between the point rated criteria, the SOW or the search criteria suggest that:

• The work described in the SOW is inaccurate, or
• The search criteria, specifically the category (ies) or stream(s) and level (if applicable) selected are inaccurate, or
• There is the appearance of an attempt to manipulate the procurement process

Assessment guidance and notes

Criterion against which points are assigned must be clearly defined so that Suppliers have the information necessary to offer the best potential resource(s) and so that the Contracting Authority or Client can evaluate the resources offered and make decisions based on clearly described criteria.

The bid solicitation document must clearly describe the point rated criteria to allow those responsible for the technical evaluation to make appropriate and supportable scoring decisions. For example, if points are assigned to a post-secondary degree, the criterion must state the points assigned for each type of degree (that is, undergraduate, graduate or doctoral), if applicable, and indicate the discipline or disciplines that would qualify for the assignment of points. Failure to do so could, for example, force an evaluator to accept degrees that have little or no relationship to the work required.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the minimum requirement for experience, minimum project duration, etc. will force evaluators to assign points against projects where the resource has, for example, one day of experience in a required area. In addition, bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the recentness of the experience or project will force evaluators to assign points against projects that were, for example, completed 5, 10, or 20 years ago.

Assessment guidance and notes

Scoring guidelines used for each point rated criterion must, when specific conditions occur, be able to return only a single value. Scoring guidelines that assign points based on multiple items such as projects must clearly indicate the number of points that will be assigned to each item or project.

For example, minimum requirement is for 2 years of experience (specified as a mandatory requirement). Scoring guide assigns 10 points for greater than 2 years experience but less than 5 years experience and 20 points for 5 or more years of experience. Suppliers know that if they offer a resource with 5 years experience they will be assigned 20 points for that criterion. However, using the same example above, the scoring guide assigns 10 points for 2 to 5 years experience and 20 points for 5 or more years of experience. How will the evaluator determine the number of points to assign a resource with exactly 5 years experience?

Use of Rating Schemes:

In some cases, the bid solicitation document may include a table that provides additional information regarding how points are assigned to a project. For example, the point rated requirement may assign points based on a description of the approach that a bidder would take to complete the required work. In such cases, points would be assigned based on degree of understanding, clarity, completeness, etc. of the bidder. How points will be assigned must be clear. For example, if points are assigned based on the bidder's understanding of the requirement, there can be no ambiguity in the description of the various levels of understanding. In addition, there can only be one score assigned for each level. For example, if a point rated criterion assigns points based on the supplier's level of understanding and the maximum number of points is 50, points can be assigned as follows:

• Level 1—10 points (Fair understanding)
• Level 2—20 points (Good understanding)
• Level 3—30 points (Excellent understanding)

Using the same example as above, a range of points are assigned as follows:

• Level 1—1 to 10 points (Fair understanding)
• Level 2—11 to 20 points (Good understanding)
• Level 3—21 to 30 points (Excellent understanding)

Based on the above, assigning a range of points for each level allows the evaluator to determine how "excellent" an understanding is.

Assessment guidance and notes

Various selection methodologies that are based on points assigned to point rated requirements, may also specify that for a bid to be considered it must achieve a minimum total number of points, minimum number of points per point rated criterion or both. In such cases, the bid solicitation document must state the minimum score required (either total or individual or both). Without this information, Suppliers will not be able to determine whether or not the resource they wish to offer will meet the minimum score(s) required. The potential selection methodologies that this could apply to include:

• Best value defined as technically compliant response that has the lowest price per point, and
• Best value defined as technically compliant response that achieves the highest combined rating of technical merit and price
• Best value defined as technically compliant response that has the highest number of points

Information related to the minimum number of points or minimum percentage of the total points presented in various areas of the bid solicitation document must be consistent. Potential discrepancies include:

• Minimum number of points or minimum percentage of the total points stated in one area of bid solicitation document contradicts the minimum requirement in another
• Minimum percentage of points required stated in one area of bid solicitation document contradicts the minimum percentage of points calculated based on the minimum and maximum number of points specified elsewhere in the bid solicitation document
• Clause portion of the bid solicitation document or scoring guide requires that bidders achieve a minimum total number of points or minimum percentage of total maximum points that is different than the sum of the minimum number of points required for all rated requirement

In the event that the Assessor notes that the original bid solicitation contains conflicting information regarding the minimum points required and the issue is corrected before the deadline set for proposals to be returned, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The Assessor shall note these facts in the comments field of the assessment report.

Assessment guidance and notes

Point rated technical evaluation criteria must not be construed as unduly restricting the ability of a Supplier to respond to the bid solicitation. Examples of such a situation includes, but is not limited to:

• An unreasonable number of point rated requirements given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• Amount of experience required to gain the maximum number of points is unreasonable. Factors that can affect this conclusion include the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc. For example, maximum points for a specific point rated criterion can only be achieved if the resource has a minimum of 25 years of experience
• Points are assigned for certificate(s) where the need for the certificate is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (for example requirement is for category 2.15 Facilitator Consultant, level of expertise - junior. To get points, the certificate required Master Facilitator Certification)

  Note: Master Facilitator Certification is a higher certification level than Certified Professional Facilitator.

• Points are assigned for specific experience that can only be obtained within a specific organization within a department or within a specific department. For example, points are assigned based on project management experience within a specific area or in a specific type of project within National Defence
• Minimum number of projects required, the minimum duration of a project or both required to achieve the maximum score possible is unreasonable given the category, level, work described in the SOW, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bids submitted must comply with all requirements (for example supplier certifications, insurance requirements, financial stability, etc.) of the bid solicitation to be responsive. Selection methodologies available in the High Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (HC) include:

• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria (refer SACC Clause A0031T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price (refer SACC Clause A0027T)
• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the minimum total number of points, or minimum percentage of points or the minimum number of points for each point rated criterion (refer SACC Clause A0034T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the lowest price per point (refer SACC Clause A0035T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the highest number of points within the budget available for the requirement (refer SACC Clause A0036T)

Selection methodologies based on the highest combined rating of technical merit and price will assign a higher weighting of points to technical merit and a lower weighting to price. The higher the technical weighting, the more important the ability to perform the work is as opposed to cost. In this situation, the work or duties required, category, level, mandatory and point rated requirements all play a role in the Assessor determining whether or not the Contracting Authority was justified in using a higher combined rating.

In the event that the Assessor notes that the original bid solicitation is either missing information regarding the selection methodology or contains conflicting information regarding the selection methodology and the issue is corrected before the deadline set for responses to be returned, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The Assessor shall note these facts in the comments field of the assessment report.

Assessment guidance and notes

TB Contracting Policy (Appendix A—Definitions) defines best value as - The combination of price, technical merit, and quality, as determined by the contracting authority before the bid solicitation and set out in the bid solicitation evaluation criteria, and which forms the basis of evaluation and negotiation between buyers and sellers to arrive at an acceptable basis for a purchase and sale.

Potential selection methodologies that could be used include:

• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria (refer SACC Clause A0031T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price (refer SACC Clause A0027T)
• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the minimum total number of points, or minimum percentage of points or the minimum number of points for each point rated criterion (refer SACC Clause A0034T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the lowest price per point (refer SACC Clause A0035T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the highest number of points within the budget available for the requirement (refer SACC Clause A0036T)
• Right-fit only applicable to THS and only when using competitive method 1

Demonstrating that best value has been achieved using methodology b) (that is, technically compliant response that achieves the highest combined rating of technical merit and price) can be challenging. Selection methodologies based on the highest combined rating of technical merit and price will assign a higher weighting of points to technical merit and a lower weighting to price. The higher the technical weighting, the more important the ability to perform the work is as opposed to cost and the higher the potential premium Canada would have to pay for the higher rated work. In this situation, the work or duties required, the classification, the level, the mandatory and point rated requirements all play a role in the Assessor determining whether or not the Contracting Authority was justified in using a higher combined rating. The fifth selection methodology (that is, technically compliant response that achieves the highest number of points) is commonly used for scientific work or where the outcome is based on a solution.

Assessment guidance and notes

CPSS ePortal allows the Contracting Authority to save an electronic copy of the initial and final search results. Without a copy of the initial and final search results on file, the Assessor will not be able to confirm that the following harmonized business rules have been applied.

• $0 - $40k --> One supplier selected from the initial search results
• All MoS at the exception of THS - $0 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or Canada Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA) (effective July 1st, 2020) --> Minimum of 2 suppliers must be invited from the initial search results by selecting 2 suppliers, or by selecting 1 supplier from the initial search results and allowing the CPSS Client Module to randomly select the second supplier, or allowing the CPSS Client Module to select 2 random suppliers
• All MoS at the exception of THS - Over NAFTA or CKFTA to $3,750,000.00 --> Minimum of 15 suppliers must be invited from the initial search results. The Contracting Authority (CA) should select at least 10 suppliers with the remaining 5 suppliers selected randomly from the CPSS Client Module. If the CA selects less than the minimum 10 suppliers, the CPSS Client Module will randomly select a sufficient number of suppliers to meet the minimum 15 supplier requirement. If the CA selects more than 15 suppliers, but not all Suppliers, the CPSS Client Module will still randomly select an additional 5 suppliers
• THS competitive method 1 and method 2:
  1. System randomly chooses 5 suppliers that are certified as diverse suppliers, 3 being low volume
  2. System randomly chooses another 6 suppliers
  3. Identified user chooses 0 to four 4 additional suppliers
  4. See rules for joint ventures (JV)’s

Without a copy of the documentation sent, it is not possible for the Assessor to confirm who was sent the bid solicitation document and when. Contracting Authorities (CAs) are not allowed to bypass any Supplier that has been randomly selected by the CPSS Client module. Cases of poor past performance by a Supplier must be dealt outside the bid solicitation process.

Assessment guidance and notes

For Requirements valued over NAFTA or CKFTA, an NPP must be posted on the government electronic tendering service (GETS). For requirements above $400K for Temporary Help Services (THS) only, an NPP must be posted on GETS. The NPP alerts qualified suppliers who were not invited to request a copy of the bid solicitation.

Assessment guidance and notes

The following items, common to all harmonized MoSs in the CPSS ePortal, must be included in all NPPs where applicable.

Sample NPPs for SBIPS, TBIPS and TSPS are available to federal government users. When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not all required information as identified above have been incorporated into the NPP.

Assessment guidance and notes

Contracting Authority may, during the response period, need to amend the bid solicitation document. Reasons for amending the bid solicitation document include changing the response closing date, revisions to the SOW, revisions to the technical evaluation criteria (mandatory or point-rated criteria or both), etc. Amendments to the bid solicitation document must be provided to all Suppliers including any Suppliers who may have previously indicated that they were not going to bid and all qualified suppliers not on the final search results but who requested, as a result of the posting of an NPP, and were sent a copy of the bid solicitation document. Suppliers have the right to amend their decision to respond or not respond up to the point in time when the response period closes. It is possible that, based on the new or amended information provided, a Supplier may change its mind and elect to submit a response.

Amendments to the bid solicitation document may not change any element of the original bid solicitation document that would invalidate the search conducted. Such changes include revisions to the category (ies), level, supplier security requirement, region/metropolitan area, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority may, during the response period, receive requests for clarification or questions from potential Suppliers. If the response to such requests could have an impact on the offer submitted or affect the decision of a Supplier to respond to the bid solicitation, the request for clarification/question itself along with the response must be provided to all Suppliers or, if applicable, issued directly to the Suppliers as an addendum/amendment to the bid solicitation. The Contracting Authority must retain on file documentation that confirms that all suppliers initially invited and any suppliers, which were part of the initial search results, who requested a copy of the bid solicitation were sent all requests for clarification or questions and the corresponding responses.

Assessment guidance and notes

Responses from all Suppliers must be maintained on either the contract file with the Contracting Authority or with their "Client" or a combination of the two. Responses from Suppliers must include, as a minimum, a Technical component, Financial component, Certifications, Additional Information component (if applicable), detailed information (for example resume) that will allow for the evaluation of each resource being offered against all evaluation requirements including the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and any other information/documentation required by the bid solicitation document.

Assessment guidance and notes

Non-competitive requirements are ones where the Contracting Authority has invoked the "does not exceed $40,000" rule. The response from the sole Supplier invited must be maintained on either the contract file with the Contracting Authority or with their "Client" or a combination of the two. The response from the sole Supplier invited must contain, as a minimum, the following information:

• Security information for the Supplier and resource(s) (if applicable)
• Technical bid including detailed information (for example resume) that will allow for the evaluation of each resource being offered against all evaluation requirements including the Flexible Grid (if applicable)
• Financial bid including firm price for the work or estimated level of effort, number of resources required, per diem rate for each category and level (if applicable), etc.
• Certifications

For assessment purposes, the Contracting Authority must provide complete bid solicitation response documentation submitted by the Supplier issued the contract.

Assessment guidance and notes

The technical evaluation report forms the basis for the contract(s) issued. Without it, there is no way to verify whether or not all resources offered were evaluated and whether or not the resource(s) offered were evaluated in accordance with the terms set out in the bid solicitation document. The evaluation report must cover all Suppliers who submitted a proposal as well as all resources offered.

Assessment guidance and notes

• Confirm that each resource was evaluated against the requirements of the Flexible Grid (if applicable) and all other mandatory requirements
• State the score achieved by each 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 resource offered

The "Flexible Grid" applies to procurements using the Task and Solutions Professional Services (TSPS) Supply Arrangement (SA) and non-IT categories in the ProServices SA. The "Flexible Grid" must be completed for each 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 resource offered meets the minimum score required for the category and level required. Assessors shall refer to the example provided in the Supply Arrangement for Task-Based Professional Services Annex "A" Streams and Categories or ProServices—Flexible Grid for further guidance.

Please note the following scenarios:

Scenario #1:

The sole mandatory requirement is compliance to the Flexible Grid. A statement that the 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 resource, how the total number of points was achieved, and whether or not each 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 resource offered complies with the minimum experience requirement applicable to the category and level required. A statement that the 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 resource(s) offered meet all the mandatory requirements is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each 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 requirements of the Flexible Grid have been met or not met; or that all mandatory requirements have been met or not met; or both is insufficient. The evaluator(s) must address, in a formal evaluation report, email, etc., whether or not each resource offered complies with requirements of the Flexible Grid applicable to the category and level required and each mandatory criterion.

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 (for example 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 (for example 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 evaluato, 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.

Assessment guidance and notes

In order for the Contracting Authority or client to select the Supplier and resource(s) in accordance with the selection methodology specified in the bid solicitation document, the points assigned to each point rated technical evaluation criterion must be stated. Where determination of compliance is based on a minimum sub-total score or minimum total score or both for each resource evaluated, the minimum score (sub-total or total as applicable) must be stated. Any party reviewing a contract awarded as a result of a bid solicitation, must be able to re-create the circumstances that led to the selection made.

Assessment guidance and notes

Each point rated technical evaluation criterion will describe 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 PMP (Project Management Professional) 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.

Assessment guidance and notes

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

• A resource to be declared non-responsive (that is, response referring to that 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 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 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 Masters degree), and 20 points are assigned to a resource who has proven that he/she holds a Masters 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.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority must document how compliant bids received were ranked and demonstrate that the selection methodology, stated in the bid solicitation document, was applied correctly.

Assessment guidance and notes

The potential selection methodologies available include:

• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria (refer Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Clause A0031T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price (refer SACC Clause A0027T)
• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the minimum total number of points, or minimum percentage of points or the minimum number of points for each point rated criterion (refer SACC Clause A0034T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the lowest price per point (refer SACC Clause A0035T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the highest number of points within the budget available for the requirement (refer SACC Clause A0036T)
• Applicable to THS only—Responsive bid that meets all mandatory criteria and proposed resource meets one of the 5 pre-established justifications allowing them to select a higher priced bid within a +/-20% median band when using right fit

Errors made in the evaluation of bids submitted can affect the ranking of the bids and, ultimately, which supplier was awarded the contract. For example, if the bid solicitation required a minimum level of education and proof of education was not provided, then the conclusions drawn in the evaluation report were not based on objective evidence. Therefore, the resource offered should have been deemed to be non-compliant and the contract should not have been awarded to the supplier in question.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority must verify that the document safeguarding (if applicable) of the Supplier is valid before contract award. Documentation confirming the document safeguarding (if applicable) of the Supplier must include: name of the Supplier and the current security level Refer Assessment Guidance and Notes section under element 8.06 Security Clearance.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority must verify that the security clearance of the 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 resource or company (as applicable), current security level, current status (validity) of the 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.

Assessment guidance and notes

Without a copy of the contract, it is not possible for the Contracting Authority to determine what work was to be performed and by whom, what the rate to be charged was, how payment was to be made, etc. In addition, without a contract, the Contracting Authority or the client (if applicable) cannot certify that the work was performed in accordance with the terms of the contract under section 32 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA).

Assessment guidance and notes

The Assessor must determine whether or not the requirement value used to conduct the search is consistent with the value of the contract(s) awarded inclusive of all amendments, applicable taxes, travel and living expenses, travel status time to be paid, options, etc. The Contracting Authority must, when issuing contract amendments, monitor the total revised value of the contract so as to not exceed the applicable maximum value threshold.

If the search was conducted based on the total value being less than $3,75M and the total value of all contract awarded exceeds $3,75M, the procurement should have been managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) because the total value of the requirement exceeds the client department's authority as stipulated in Schedule 3, Appendix C of the Treasury Board Contracting Policy.

If the search was conducted based on the total value of all contracts awarded being less than NAFTA or CKFTA threshold and the total value of the contracts exceeded the NAFTA or CKFTA threshold, different business rules governing the procurement should have been applied (that is, number of suppliers invited, minimum bidding period, requirement for an NPP, etc.).

If the search was conducted based on the total value of the contract being less than $40k and the contract value exceeded this amount, the procurement should have been done competitively. This also could give the appearance that the use of the fourth exception (that is, requirements valued at under $40,000) in the Government Contracting Regulations (GCRs) to set aside the competitive bidding process was used, which contravenes the CPSS ePortal business rules.

Assessment guidance and notes

Contract documents for all Methods of Supply (MoS)s, with the exception of ProServices and THS, must use Part 7—Resulting Contract Clauses from the "High Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (HC)" bid solicitation template available in the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual. Contract documents issued using the ProServices MoS must use Part 6—Resulting Contract Clauses from the "Medium Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (MC)" bid solicitation template available in the SACC Manual. Part 7 and 6 from the HC and MC bid solicitation templates respectively, contain clauses that must appear in the contract document and clauses that are only required in specific circumstances. When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not all required components of the contract, including but not limited to all required clauses (including the Task authorization (TA) clause if applicable), annexes, Security Requirement Checklist (SRCL), etc., have been included in the contract. Clients are directed to use THS request for proposal templates at Templates (available on Government of Canada network only). .

Assessment guidance and notes

Changes to the SOW or work description between the bid solicitation issued and the contract awarded could result in changes to the category (ies) or level(s) or both used in the search conducted, the evaluation criteria used, the resource(s) offered by the Supplier in response to the bid solicitation, the evaluation results and ultimately a change to the contract awarded.

Assessment guidance and notes

The category or the level or both cannot be changed once the bid solicitation document is issued. A change to the level or category would invalidate the original search conducted.

Assessment guidance and notes

The security clearance required cannot be changed once the bid solicitation is issued. In the event that the security clearance specified was determined to be in error, the bid solicitation must be cancelled, a new search conducted based on the correct security clearance required and a new bid solicitation document issued. For example, if the original search was conducted based on the security clearance being "Secret", a change to "None" would result in different search results. This would have a domino effect in terms of affecting the Suppliers responding, resources being proposed and potentially change the award process.

The security clearance of a resource remains with that resource. However, a resource can only hold as high a security clearance with a Supplier as that Supplier has. For example, a resource has Top Secret security clearance. If Firm A wishes to offer this resource and Firm A only has a security clearance at the Secret level, then Firm A can only offer the resource against a bid solicitation that requires a security clearance of Secret or less. Also, in the example above, if the resource has a Top Secret clearance with Firm A and the resource is offered by Firm B, who is cleared to NATO Top Secret as verified by PSPC security, then the security clearance from Firm A can be applied to Firm B for assessment purposes.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority

• Reviews Security Requirement Check List (SRCL) submitted by the Departmental client
• Ensures client signed box 13 & 14
• Signs Box 16 of the SRCL
• Includes security requirements in contracting documentation using appropriate security clauses
• Verifies the suppliers meet contract security requirements by contacting the Contract Security Program's client service centre
• Provides the CSP with copies of the SRCLs, Security classification guides and all awarded contracts, even when using the common (pre-approved) SRCLs
• Reminds clients of the need for security classification guides or IT security plan when multiple security levels apply

Assessment guidance and notes

Without a copy of all contract amendments, it is not possible for the Contracting Authority to determine whether changes were made to the work to be performed, was there a change in milestone dates stated in the contract, etc. However, based on documentation on file, amendments to contracts may have been issued that were for administrative purposes only.

Examples of contract amendments that are of an administrative nature include, but are not limited to:

• Amendment(s) raised to change a funding code
• Amendment(s) raised to reduce the value of the contract to reflect the actual amount of work done (that is, days or hours spent)
• Amendment(s) raised to correct an error in the original contract or previous contract amendment

Assessment guidance and notes

The amendment date shall be the date that the amendment was executed (that is, the date that the amendment was signed).

Assessment guidance and notes

When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not the all clauses and Annexes, stated in the contract, affected by the amendment have been updated appropriately. Examples of such a situation includes, but is not limited to:

• Contract includes specific clause for contract period and also includes Annex B, Basis of Payment includes a reference to the contract period. The amendment revises the contract period in the specific clause but fails to revise the Annex or vice versa
• Amendment changes the value of the contract. Annex B, Basis of Payment is revised appropriately but the Limitation of Expenditure clause is not revised

Temporary Help Services

PSPC does not have to approve the amendment. However, copy of the amendment must be send within 2 working days to tpsgc.pasat-apths.pwgsc@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca for administration purposes. Contracts can be amended to extend up to a maximum of 24 consecutive weeks beyond the limit of 48 consecutive weeks.

Assessment guidance and notes

If the SOW included in the bid solicitation document and subsequently in the contract requires significant changes, the Contracting Authority must cancel the contract and start a new contract process (conduct a new search, issue new bid solicitation document, etc.). The only exception to the above rule is a case where the Contracting Authority included an incorrect SOW or work description in the original contract. In this case, the amendment is administrative in nature and was raised to correct an error in the original contract.

Assessment guidance and notes

A change to the level(s) or category (ies) or both would have invalidated the original search conducted.

The only exception to the above rule is a case where the original contract refers to the wrong category or level. In this case, the amendment is administrative in nature and was raised to correct an error in the original contract.

Assessment guidance and notes

Work covered under a TA is authorized through the issuance of one of the following forms:

• Non-Department of National Defence (DND) contracts—Form Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)-Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada (TPSGC) 572 Task authorization or other developed task authorization form that meets the requirements noted herein
• DND contracts—Form DND 626 Task authorization

In some cases, a TA issued must be amended due to minor changes to the work required, to increase the total estimated cost of a TA, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

The TA date and/or TA amendment (if applicable) shall be the date that the TA and/or TA amendment was executed (that is, the date that the TA and/or TA amendment was signed).

Assessment guidance and notes

TA form must contain all required components and must be consistent with the clauses stated in the contract. TA amendments (if applicable) must contain all required components and must be consistent with the clauses stated in the original TA form. TA form must include, as a minimum, the following information:

Supporting documentation to the TA includes, but is not limited to, the Contractor's response to the TA request. The Contractor's response should include start and end date of the work, proposed changes to the work (if applicable), estimated cost (per diem rate(s), level of effort, travel and living, etc.), etc.

• The Contracting Authority must document the rationale for amending the TA. Such rationale can be included in the amended TA form or documented on file separately
• It is sufficient, in some cases (for example security requirements, method of payment, basis of payment, etc.), for the TA to state "refer to contract" or something to that effect
• Amendment to a TA must clearly identify the changes to the TA
• In the PSPC TA Form (PWGSC-TPSGC 572 Task authorization):
  • Field titled "Task Description of the Work Required" must include the start and end date for the work
  • Field titled "Cost of task" allows for the inclusion of a detailed break-down of the costs associated with the task including per diem rate(s), level of effort, travel and living, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

The work described in the TA and/or TA amendment must be consistent with the Statement of work (SOW) contained in the contract. If the Contracting Authority or the Client determines that there were significant omissions in the description of the scope of the work covered under the contract, the contract should be cancelled and a new procurement issued.

Each TA must be completed on or before the expiry date of the contract. If the task cannot be completed before the expiry of the contract, the contract must be amended to extend the contract period before the TA is issued. TA amendment must be completed on or before the expiry date of the original TA. If the task cannot be completed before the expiry of the original TA, a TA amendment must be issued on or before the expiry date of the original TA.

Assessment guidance and notes

The contract may allow for either all of the work to be performed through TAs or only a portion of the work. In both cases, the value of the TA cannot exceed the limitation(s) set out in the contract for each individual TA. For contracts where all of the work will be performed by TAs, the total value of all TAs cannot exceed the limitation(s) set out in the contract cannot exceed the total value of the contract cannot exceed the limitation(s) set out in the contract. For contracts where only a portion of the work will be performed by TAs, the total value of all TAs plus the total value of the work not covered by TAs, cannot exceed the limitation(s) set out in the contract cannot exceed the limitation(s) set out in the contract.

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 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).

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.

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 (for example 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 (for example 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.

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)

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.

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 (that is, 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.

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 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.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Contracting Authority may only award contracts that are within their legal authority. For example:

• Requirements over $3.75M, for all departments except for Fisheries and Oceans, National Defence, Shared Services Canada and Transport Canada must be referred to Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) for procurement
• Requirements under $3.75M must be referred to PSPC for procurement if the value of the requirement exceeds the client department's delegated authority
• Contracting Authority may have an approval level for contracts that is less than that delegated to their department

It is not possible for an Assessor to determine whether or not the Contracting Authority has or does not have the delegated authority to approve (that is, sign) the contract(s). Given the sensitivity of this issue, guidance shall be sought by the Assessor before requesting confirmation of a Contracting Authority's delegation of authority.

Circumventing approval

The following are examples of behaviors that could be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent appropriate management approval levels within the department or agency:

• Issuance of multiple contracts for the same or similar work in order to invoke the “does not exceed $40k” rule
  • For example, 2 contracts (each valued at $40,000) are issued for the same or similar work. The issuance of these 2 contracts gives the appearance that the requirement has been split in order set aside the competitive bidding process
• Splitting up a large requirement or braking up a project into phases so as to reduce the value of the requirement so that a specific Supply Arrangement (SA) could be used or a smaller number of supplier invited
  • Example #1—A requirement is valued at $150,000, which means that a minimum of 15 suppliers would need to be invited because the value of the requirement exceeds the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) threshold or the Canada Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA) (effective July 1st, 2020). If that same requirement was split and one contract for $75k was issued in March and the second contract issued in November (after completion of the first contract) for $75k, the contracting authority (using the ProServices SA) would only be required to invite two (2) suppliers for each requirement
  • Example #2—A project requires work covered by several different categories. A procurement is done for each category and the aggregate value of all resulting contracts either exceeded the NAFTA or CKFTA threshold or the $3.75M limitation for most departments
  • Example #3—Issuing two contracts (each valued at $75,000) using the ProServices SA for the same or similar work so as to avoid using the Task and solutions professional services (TSPS) or the Task based informatics professional services (TBIPS) SAs
  • Example #4—Issuing two contracts (each valued at $3.75M) using the PASS SA or Learning Services SA for the same or similar work to avoid sending the requirement to PSPC for procurement.
• Issue back-to-back contracts for the same or similar work
  • Example #1—The Contracting authority issues a contract to a supplier and, at the end of the contract (or within a very short period of time) issues another contract to the same supplier for the same or similar work. If the procurement process is centralized, the contracting authority may receive the same or similar requirement from different "clients". In such cases, the contracting authority may argue that they could not anticipate that requirements for the same or similar work would be received from different "clients". This argument can be accepted when there is no history of such periodic requirements. However, once this issue has been raised with the contracting authority, if future assessments reveal similar findings, the assessor cannot accept the argument that the need could not be anticipated. The assessor must take into account that, while the work is required periodically, the requirement may be sporadic (that is, it may occur once one year, several times the next year but not at all the year after). In such situations, the assessor must accept the argument that the contracting authority user could not anticipate or forecast future requirements for the same work
  • Example #2—The contracting authority issues a contract to a supplier and, at the end of the contract (or within a very short period of time) issues another contract to the same supplier or a different supplier for different work but, after closer examination, the assessor determines that the covered under each contract represents a different phase of a project. Contracting authorities may argue, for example, that the initial contract was issued to define the scope of future work required and that, based on the results of the initial contract, a decision was made that a second contract was required. If there is a possibility that additional phase(s) of the work may be required, the initial requirement should include options for each additional phase of the work

Assessment guidance and notes

• Criteria for assessing an employer-employee relationship have been established by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and pertinent court rulings. For guidance, seek legal advice or consult the CRA publication RC 4110, Employee or Self-Employed. If there is any uncertainty, the contract should be signed at a level higher than the individual who would normally approve the initial entry into the contract
• Legal advice should be sought where it is not feasible for contracting officers to determine whether a contract is a contract for services or a contract of employment (that is, employment status is not easily identifiable). It is ultimately the responsibility of the contracting officer to ensure that contracts do not create employer-employee relationships