5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services

1. Attestation of assurance

The fairness monitor (FM) hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the 5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services 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.

2. Project requirement

HKA Global (Canada), Inc. was engaged on April 3, 2012 as the FM to observe the competitive procurement process for the 5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services project, undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND). This competitive procurement process is being undertaken by PWGSC under Letter of Interest (LOI) solicitation number W6369-170006/A and Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation number W6369-170006/B. HKA Global (Canada), Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

This final report covers the activities of the FM from the initiation of FM activities in July 2018, through the posting of the LOI on buyandsell.gc.ca, industry engagement activities on draft versions of the RFP, posting of the RFP on buyandsell.gc.ca, the evaluation of the proposals received and the selection of the recommended contractor.

We reviewed all the information provided and observed or monitored all relevant activities. This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and details of our activities, including any relevant observations from the activities undertaken.

3. Fairness monitoring engagement and observations

The overall objective of the engagement was to provide independent observation of the procurement process and to submit fairness-related comments to project officials, as early as possible, so that appropriate action could be taken to address the comments before fairness was impacted. The director, Fairness Monitoring Program would be advised of any fairness related concerns that were not addressed promptly. An assurance statement as to fairness, openness and transparency would be provided at the conclusion of the procurement process.

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant documents, observed or monitored industry engagement activities, bid solicitation activities, and evaluation and contractor selection activities, provided fairness related comments to project officials and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

On July 24, 2018, we reviewed a draft version of the LOI and provided fairness related comments to the contracting authority. On August 23, 2018, we reviewed the LOI as posted on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 1). The purpose of the LOI was to announce the planned procurement of support services for 5 Wing Goose Bay and to outline a plan for industry engagement activities leading to an RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 29, 2018, we reviewed a draft of amendment 1 to the LOI. Amendment 1 was subsequently posted on September 5, 2019 (Document 2). The purpose of the amendment was to add operations support and weather services to the overview of the statement of work in the LOI. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 30, 2018, we reviewed amendment 2 to the LOI as published on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 3). The purpose of the amendment was to answer questions from industry and to modify the LOI to incorporate relevant information on Controlled Goods requirements. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On November 30, 2018, we reviewed draft amendment 3 to the LOI which was subsequently posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on December 4, 2018 (Document 4). The purpose of the amendment was to modify the schedule provided in the LOI. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On February 1, 2019, we reviewed questions to industry on the timing of 1-on-1 meetings. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On March 4 and 11, 2019, we reviewed a draft statement of work for the services required at Goose Bay. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period May 2 to 8, 2019, we reviewed a draft of the RFP. Fairness-related comments were provided to the contracting authority and appropriate action was taken. On May 10, 2019, the draft RFP was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca as amendment 4 to the LOI (Document 5).

On May 13, 2019, we reviewed a draft of an attachment to the LOI, the purpose of which was to invite industry to an industry day and confidential 1-on-1 meetings and to outline arrangements for the events. On May 15, 2019, the attachment was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 6). No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 30, 2019, we reviewed a draft presentation to be provided to industry at the upcoming industry day. On June 3, 2019, we observed the industry day. The presentation covered the background of 5 Wing Goose Bay, a summary description of the support services required, and an outline of the expected contents of the upcoming RFP and resulting contract. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

The presentation given at industry day was posted as an attachment to the LOI on buyandsell.gc.ca on June 19, 2019 (Document 7). The attachment also included registration information for an optional site visit to 5 Wing Goose Bay. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period June 3 to 6, 2019, we observed commercially confidential 1-on-1 meetings with 7 interested firms. Each meeting followed the same rules with a common agenda with most of the time allotted to questions and concerns of the firms. The project team had a consistent approach to responding to, or deferring for later consideration, questions or concerns raised. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On July 8, 2019, we reviewed a draft of amendment 5 which consisted of questions received from interested firms and proposed answers. Amendment 5 was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on July 11, 2019 (Document 8). No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On July 10, 2019, we observed the optional site visit to 5 Wing. A presentation was provided covering the background to the Goose Bay requirement and an outline of the upcoming RFP. A bus provided transportation for all attendees at the same time ensuring that all received the same information on each facility visited. Care was taken to ensure that all heard answers to the questions asked. A common question period was held after the tour. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On July 16, 2019, we reviewed 2 draft documents: a “Summary of Feedback and Outcomes” received in accordance with the LOI and “Master Question List of Questions” received from the industry engagement activities. The Summary was subsequently posted as an attachment to the LOI on July 19, 2019 (Document 9) with the “Master Question List of Questions” incorporated within it. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

During the period August 2 to September 3, 2019, we reviewed a series of additional questions received from interested suppliers and proposed answers. Fairness related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials. These questions and answers were posted on buyandsell.gc.ca as amendment 6 on August 2, 2019, amendment 7 on August 20, 2019, and amendment 8 on September 3, 2019 (Documents 10, 11 and 12 respectively).

On September 4, 2019, we were advised by the contracting authority that since a part of the draft RFP had undergone significant revision, a revised draft would be provided to industry for comment. During the period September 4 to 10, 2019, we reviewed the revised draft RFP. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On September 6, 2019, we reviewed draft amendment 10 to the LOI. The purpose of the draft was to seek feedback from industry on the revised draft RFP. Amendment 9 to the LOI (Document 13) was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on September 10, 2019, along with Amendment 10 (Document 14) the revised RFP itself. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On February 26, 2020, we reviewed the RFP as posted on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 15) and Amendment 1 to the RFP (Document 16). Amendment 1 provided answers to questions 1 to 7 which had been submitted by interested suppliers just prior to the RFP being posted. We also were advised by the contracting authority that a site visit was being planned for Goose Bay for March 12, 2020. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period March 5 to July 15, 2020, we reviewed amendments 2 to 12 to the RFP (Documents 17 to 27). We initially reviewed the amendments in draft just prior to being posted with a final review after each was posted. Fairness-related comments were provided to the contracting authority and appropriate action was taken.

The purposes of amendments 2 to 12 to the RFP were as follows:

• Amendment 2—Updated the RFP
• Amendment 3—Advised the process for obtaining copies of references and provided answers to questions (8 to 19) submitted by interested suppliers
• Amendment 4—Extended closing date
• Amendment 5—Updated RFP and provided answers to questions 20 to 140
• Amendment 6—Provided answers to questions 34, 89 and 141 to 249
• Amendment 7—Extended closing date
• Amendment 8—Updated RFP and provided answers to questions 148, 176, 196, and 250 to 400
• Amendment 9—Updated RFP and provided answers to questions 401-450 and some previous questions for which answers had been deferred
• Amendment 10—Amended the Statement of Work and provided answers to some previous questions for which answers had been deferred
• Amendment 11 – Extended the closing date, amended the Statement of Work, and answered some questions that had been deferred
• Amendment 12 – Amended the Financial Evaluation Spreadsheet and Basis of Payment to incorporate the recent amendments to the Statement of Work and answered remaining deferred questions

On March 12, 2020, we observed the site visit to Goose Bay by interested suppliers. A bus provided transportation for all attendees at the same time, thereby ensuring that all received the same information. The tour was comprehensive, and all germane buildings and facilities were viewed and toured inside, where applicable, subject to security restrictions, except for the water plant. The water plant was not visited due to winter accessibility risks. Care was taken to ensure that all suppliers heard answers to the questions asked. After the tour a common question period was held, and answers were provided. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

Throughout the last few months of the RFP posting period and the period of the evaluation, Canada was in various stages of a pandemic lock-down. The lock-down had no impact on the fairness of the competitive process. When generally accepted practices could not be undertaken, alternative processes were put in place. These alternative processes, one of which is described in the following paragraph, met the same standard of fairness as the normal processes.

During the period April 24 to May 1, 2020, we reviewed emails from the contracting authority to interested suppliers advising that large documents with sensitive information would now be made available through a cloud service in view of the pandemic shutdown. These were RFP attachments which could not be posted on buyandsell.gc.ca because of sensitivity and would normally be picked up at the contracting authority’s office. Interested suppliers were provided with detailed instructions and advised when new documents were added on the cloud service. The contracting authority subsequently confirmed with the interested suppliers that the system was working, and each had access to their respective folders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 22, 2020, we reviewed an email from an interested supplier to the contracting authority expressing concern with a specific service the successful contractor was expected to provide. On May 26, 2020, we monitored a project team teleconference during which the matter was discussed. Fairness-related comments were provided. We reviewed a draft of the proposed response to the supplier on May 26, 2020 and provided fairness related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On June 22, 2020, we monitored a teleconference call between an interested supplier and the contracting authority. As a courtesy, the supplier wanted to advise of a teaming arrangement for bidding being put in place. The contracting authority noted the arrangement without comment other than to bring the supplier’s attention to relevant RFP clauses. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 23, 2020, we reviewed an email from the contracting authority advising interested suppliers that, as a result of the pandemic the PWGSC Bid Receiving Unit recommended that proposals be submitted electronically using the Canada Post Epost Connect tool. On June 24, 2020, we reviewed a further communication advising interested suppliers that the applicable instructions for the use of Epost Connect to submit proposals were available from PWGSC Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions and providing them with the link.

The RFP closed on August 6, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, we replied to an email from the contracting authority concerning a draft response to 1 bidder on sponsorship for a Facility Security Clearance. The response was consistent with normal practice. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 10, 2020, we were advised by the contracting authority that a section of a bidder’s proposal had been garbled in transmission by the Canada Post Epost Connection tool and that Canada intended to allow the bidder to re-submit that section of its proposal. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 25, 2020, we reviewed a trail of emails concerning a potential conflict of interest of one proposed evaluator. We had no fairness-related comments on the proposed action to be taken by the contracting authority.

On August 26, 2020, we reviewed the technical evaluation grid proposed for use of the evaluators by the contracting authority to record their individual evaluation results. The document was consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 31, 2020, we reviewed direction provided to the evaluators by the contracting authority concerning the eligibility of corporate experience of members of a bidding team. The direction was consistent with the requirements stated in the RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On September 15, 2020, we reviewed a series of emails between the contracting authority and evaluators concerning the conduct of the evaluation and provided fairness-related comments which were provided to the evaluation coordinator. Additional fairness related comments concerning the conduct of the evaluation were provided on September 24, 2020. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

The evaluation process was subject to the phased bid compliance process which allowed bidders to provide additional or different information in order to demonstrate compliance with mandatory requirements. On October 9, 2020, we reviewed 2 draft Compliance Assessment Reports (CARs) identifying non-compliance with mandatory requirements in the proposals of 2 of the bidders. On October 13, 2020, we reviewed the CARs as forwarded to the respective bidders and on October 15, 2020, we reviewed the responses received from the bidders. The responses were subsequently provided to the appropriate evaluation teams which re-evaluated the relevant mandatory criteria. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

During the period September 16 to November 27, 2020, we monitored consensus evaluation meetings of mandatory and rated technical criteria. Teleconferences were used to conduct the consensus discussions. Each evaluation team was comprised of DND military and civilian personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the field being evaluated, for example, food services, transportation services, and real property services. Care was taken in the make-up of the evaluation teams to ensure that the incumbent contractor did not gain an advantage because of working relationships at Goose Bay. While each evaluation team generally included 1 or more personnel from Goose Bay to ensure specific knowledge of Goose Bay, the majority of evaluators on each evaluation team were not from Goose Bay. Fairness-related comments were provided, and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 4, 2021, we reviewed the completed evaluation spreadsheet that had been forwarded to us by the contracting authority. The spreadsheet was consistent with the evaluation process, scoring regime and the process specified in the RFP to select the recommended bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

4. Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in this report. These documents are available through the 5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services project office or on buyandsell.gc.ca .

Note that Amendment 2 to the RFP was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca twice on March 6, 2020 and is identified as both Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 in the “Amendment Number” column of the Solicitation Documents Table on buyandsell.gc.ca. Another Amendment 3 was posted later.

5. Addendum to Fairness Monitor Final Report dated March 23, 2021 for 5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services, May 6, 2021

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

On February 15, 2021, we reviewed a letter from the contracting authority to a bidder stating that it had been successful in the competition and would be awarded the contract subject to successfully submitting documentation required by Part 6 “Security, Financial, Personnel and Other Requirements” of the Request for Proposal. On February 19, 2021, we reviewed 2 emails from the bidder to the contracting authority to which the required documentation was attached. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On March 12, 2021, we reviewed a letter from the contracting authority to the successful bidder advising that the bidder had been awarded the contract. On the same day we reviewed letters from the contracting authority to the 2 unsuccessful bidders outlining why they had been unsuccessful and inviting them to contact the contracting authority for further details.

On April 1, 2021, we monitored a debriefing given to the successful bidder and on April 7, 2021, we monitored the debriefing given to an unsuccessful bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the 5 Wing Goose Bay Site Support Services procurement process.

It is our professional opinion that the 5 Wing Goose Bay Support Services procurement process that we observed or monitored was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.