Block 2: Architectural Design Competition

Attestation of assurance

The fairness monitor (FM) hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the Parliamentary Precinct Redevelopment of Block 2 Architectural Design Competition request for qualification process.

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

Project requirement

RFP Solutions Inc. was engaged on August 2, 2019, as a FM to observe the request for qualification (RFQ) process to prequalify design teams for entry into the architectural design competition for the Parliamentary Precinct Redevelopment of Block 2 issued by the Science and Parliamentary Infrastructure Branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) under solicitation numbers EP771-200660/A to C. RFP Solutions Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

This report covers the activities of the FM during the:

• advance procurement notice (APN)
• RFQ phases of the process to prequalify design teams for entry into the architectural design competition, debriefings requested by respondents after receiving notification of the results
• finalization of the list of prequalified design teams from August 2, 2019, to June 30, 2021

The redevelopment of Parliamentary Precinct Block 2 responds to evolving parliamentary requirements to a campus approach, which formally recognizes the role of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 in providing long-term parliamentary accommodation. The goal of the current project is to provide a cohesive design solution and redevelop the site into an efficient integrated complex of buildings to enable the ongoing program of rehabilitation of core buildings throughout the Parliamentary Precinct. The project also presents an opportunity to enhance the connection between the Parliamentary Precinct and the city’s urban core, enriching the experience of the capital, its parliamentary institutions, as well as the site and its surroundings.

The project includes several components with associated procurement processes. The prequalification of design teams for entry into an architectural design competition is the subject of this report.

The architectural design competition is outside the scope of the FM services. It will be conducted at arm’s length from Canada by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and evaluated by an independent jury.

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

This report includes:

• our attestation of assurance
• a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment
• relevant observations from the activities undertaken

Fairness monitoring engagement and observations

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant documents, observed the activities leading up to and during the RFQ, including the receipt of submissions, identified fairness-related matters to the contracting authority and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

Specific activities and observations of the FM in respect of those activities are summarized in the remainder of this section.

In this section

• Initial advance procurement notice posting
• Initial advance procurement notice closing
• Second advance procurement notice posting
• Second advance procurement notice closing
• Request for qualification posting
• Request for qualification closing
• Evaluation instructions
• Administrative review
• Technical evaluation
• Communications and debriefing
• Final list of prequalified design teams

Initial advance procurement notice posting

The initial APN (solicitation number EP771-200660/A) was issued via buyandsell.gc.ca on January 20, 2020, with the final closing date on February 21, 2020, at 2:00 pm Eastern standard time (EST).

The purpose of the APN was to notify industry of a potential upcoming opportunity related to the redevelopment of Block 2 in the Parliamentary Precinct, to allow industry time to apply for requisite security clearances and the opportunity to provide feedback to PWGSC.

The APN documentation included:

• purpose of the APN
• project description
• procedure to select the best project and design team

The FM reviewed the drafts and final documentation before the APN was issued, providing assurance as to the neutrality of the requirements, the objectivity of the requirements and process, and the clarity of the documentation to support understandability by interested suppliers.

During the posting period, 2 amendments to the APN were issued to respond to 13 questions from industry, to clarify terminology and to issue a pre-filled request for private sector organization screening form to assist prospective respondents in the required security screening process.

Each amendment was reviewed by the FM prior to being issued.

Observations

In reviewing the draft and final APN documentation, observing the initial APN posting period and reviewing the amendments, no fairness considerations were identified by the FM.

Initial advance procurement notice closing

There were no requirements to make a submission for the initial APN. The APN was formally closed on February 21, 2020, at 2:00 pm Eastern standard time (EST).

Observations

In the formal closing of the APN, there were no activities for the FM to observe.

Second advance procurement notice posting

The second APN (solicitation number EP771-200660/B) was issued via buyandsell.gc.ca on May 13, 2020, with the final closing date on May 14, 2020, at 2:00 pm Eastern daylight time (EDT).

The purpose of the second APN was to inform industry of delays to the RFQ release caused by the COVID-19 public health situation and to respond to questions that had not been answered through the first APN. No amendments were issued.

The FM reviewed the APN prior to it being issued.

Observations

In reviewing the documentation for the second APN and observing the posting period, no fairness considerations were identified by the FM.

Second advance procurement notice closing

There were no requirements to make a submission for the second APN. The APN was formally closed on May 14, 2020, at 2:00 pm EDT.

Observations

In the formal closing of the APN, there were no activities for the FM to observe.

Request for qualification posting

The RFQ (solicitation number EP771-200660/C) was issued via buyandsell.gc.ca on December 22, 2020, with the final closing date on March 2, 2021, at 2:00 pm EST.

The RFQ was issued to invite interested parties to respond to requirements to prequalify up to 12 respondents to participate in the architectural design competition. The RFQ documentation included:

• general information (the project)
• design competition process
• request for qualification details
• instructions to respondents
• general instructions
• Annex A: Checklist and forms for submission for phase 1
• Annex B: Submission requirements and evaluation (SRE) 1 pre-qualification questionnaire
• Annex C: Scoring explanation and matrices
• Annex D: Jury biographical information
• Annex E: Glossary

The FM reviewed the draft and final documentation before the RFQ was issued, providing the:

• assurance as to the neutrality of the requirements
• objectivity of the requirements and process
• clarity of the documentation to support understandability by interested suppliers

During the posting period, 13 amendments were issued with respect to the RFQ. They included 17 revisions to the RFQ terms and conditions, responses to 120 questions posed by industry and 4 revisions to previously issued responses.

Each amendment was reviewed by the FM prior to issue.

Observations

In reviewing the draft and final RFQ documentation, observing the RFQ posting period and reviewing the amendments, no fairness considerations were identified by the FM.

Request for qualification closing

A total of 39 responses were received prior to the close of the RFQ. One of those responses was not submitted in accordance with the RFQ instructions and was disqualified.

The FM reviewed the way the responses were received and was consulted on the disqualification of the 1 submission which was not received in accordance with the RFQ instructions.

Observations

In reviewing the receipt and handling of the RFQ responses, the FM did not observe any fairness issues.

Evaluation instructions

Prior to response evaluations, the FM again reviewed the evaluation guidelines, including the:

• evaluator responsibilities
• code of conduct
• security
• confidentiality and conflict of interest requirements
• evaluation methodology

The FM provided assurance as to the impartiality of evaluation methodology.

Observations

In reviewing the evaluation methodology, the FM did not observe any fairness concerns.

Administrative review

Following RFQ closing, a review of mandatory response requirements and the prequalification questionnaire of the 38 compliant responses received was undertaken by the contracting authority; 14 responses required clarifications. The 38 responses were deemed compliant with the prequalification questionnaire requirements and were eligible to proceed to the evaluation of the rated requirements of past project experience; respondent skills and abilities; and team composition, capacity and capabilities.

The FM reviewed the requests for clarification relating to the prequalification questionnaire before they were issued to respondents. The FM also reviewed the results of the administrative review process to assess them against the requirements in the RFQ.

Observation

In reviewing the assessment of respondents’ compliance with the mandatory response and the prequalification questionnaire requirements, the FM did not observe any fairness issues.

Technical evaluation

A kick-off meeting for the technical evaluation was convened on March 11, 2021, to discuss the evaluation approach. The meeting was attended by the contracting authority, the project authority and the 3 evaluators. The FM observed the kick-off meeting.

The rated technical evaluation was conducted on the 38 responses that met all mandatory response requirements and deemed to have passed the prequalification questionnaire requirements. The rated requirements were reviewed individually by each member of the evaluation committee. While evaluators were conducting individual reviews, 2 meetings were held on March 30, 2021, and April 1, 2021, to check in on the evaluation process and to address any issues prior to the consensus evaluation. The FM observed both meetings.

Consensus evaluation sessions were conducted over the period from April 28, 2021, to May 7, 2021.

As per the RFQ, the 12 top-rated respondents were identified to enter the architectural design competition. The next 3 highest-ranking respondents were identified as in reserve respondents that could be asked to participate in the competition, in order of ranking, if any of the 12 highest ranked respondents declined to participate.

The FM observed each of the consensus evaluation sessions and verified the results.

Observation

In observing the consensus evaluation and reviewing the results of the technical evaluation, the FM did not identify any fairness issues.

Communications and debriefing

All respondents were notified of their results and the debrief process via e-mail on May 13, 2021.

Three of the 39 respondents requested debriefings. The debriefings were conducted by the PWGSC contracting authority and technical authority on June 1 and 3, 2021 via Microsoft Teams.

The FM reviewed the notifications before they were issued and observed each of the debriefings.

Observation

In reviewing the notifications of the results and observing the debriefings, the FM did not identify any fairness issues.

Final list of prequalified design teams

After notification of the results, 1 of the 12 top-rated respondents declined to participate in the architectural design competition. All 3 respondents forming the reserve also declined to participate. Therefore, 11 design teams will participate in the architectural design competition. The list was finalized on June 30, 2021.

The FM reviewed the communications with the respondents for participation in the design competition and reviewed the final list of participants.

Observation

In reviewing the communications of the results and the final list of participants in the design competition, the FM did not identify any fairness issues.

Reference documents

Documents related to solicitation numbers EP771-200660/A to C are available on CanadaBuys or through the project office.