Manned Airborne Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Stage 2 In-Service Support

1. Attestation of assurance

The fairness monitor (FM) hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement concerning the Manned Airborne Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (MAISR) In-Service Support Stage 2 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 September 4, 2015 as FM to observe the competitive procurement process for the MAISR In-Service Support project, undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence under solicitation number W8485-163258/B. HKA Global (Canada), Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

As described in our final report on Stage 1 of the project, 3 Letters of Interest (LOI) with solicitation numbers W8486-148564 E, F and G were issued. LOI W8486-148564 G announced that there would be a revised procurement strategy. Under the revised strategy, the terms of reference for the FM only require the FM to observe the procurement activities undertaken for the acquisition of In-service Support Services which we have called Stage 2 of the MAISR project.

This report covers the activities of the FM from the initiation of the Industry Engagement (IE) phase in April 2018, through the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase and completion of the bid evaluation and contractor selection phase on March 23, 2021.

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 bid evaluation and contractor selection activities, provided fairness-related comments to project officials and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

On April 20, 2018, we reviewed a draft of LOI W8486-148564/H which included an industry response template and on April 26, 2018 we reviewed LOI H as published on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 1). The purpose of LOI H was to outline the plan for industry engagement activities. Amendment 1 to LOI H was published on buyandsell.gc.ca on April 27, 2018 (Document 2) and we reviewed it on the same date. The purpose of this amendment was to update the Goods and Services Identification Number and clarify title information. No fairness deficiencies were identified concerning LOI H and amendment 1.

On May 17, 2018, we reviewed the situation concerning representation at the forthcoming industry engagement meetings and provided fairness-related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On May 30, 2018, we reviewed 3 responses to LOI H received from potential bidders, the latest version of the industry engagement plenary presentation deck and the one-on-one meetings schedule. On May 31, 2018 we reviewed the final version of the plenary presentation deck. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 4, 2018, we reviewed a revised one-on-one meeting schedule and on the same day we observed the industry engagement plenary meeting and 3 one-on-one meetings. On June 5, 2018 we observed 4 one-on-one meetings and on June 6, 2018 we observed 4 one-on-one meetings. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 8, 2018, amendment 2 to LOI H was published on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 3) and we reviewed it on the same day. The purpose of amendment 2 was to extend the submission date for the LOI H industry response template. On the same day, we reviewed a response to LOI H received from a potential bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 11, 2018, we reviewed a proposed answer to a question from a potential bidder and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 20, 2018, we reviewed a draft version of amendment 3 to LOI H concerning non-disclosure agreements. Amendment 3 was published on buyandsell.gc.ca on June 27, 2018. (Document 4). No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On July 6, 2018, we reviewed a proposed answer to a question from a potential bidder and we provided fairness-related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On October 5, 2018, we reviewed LOI W8486-148564/I as published on buyandsell.gc.ca on October 4, 2018 (Document 5) and reviewed updated information on the MAISR project. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 5, 2018 we reviewed amendment 1 to LOI I which changed the closing date of LOI I and was published on buyandsell.gc.ca the same day (Document 6).

On October 16, 2018, we reviewed a request from a potential bidder and the proposed answer. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 23, 2018, we reviewed a proposed communication to potential bidders concerning the industry response template and no fairness deficiencies were identified. On the same date, we reviewed the planned schedule for one-on-one meetings with potential bidders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 26, 2018, we reviewed the agenda and presentation for the second industry day and site visit to Canadian Forces Base Trenton to take place on October 30, 2018, and the latest schedule for one-on-one meetings with potential suppliers to take place in Ottawa on October 31 and November 1, 2018. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 30, 2018, we observed the plenary session of the second industry day and the visit by potential bidders to the appropriate facilities at Canadian Forces Base Trenton. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On October 31, 2018, we observed 4 one-on-one meetings and on November 1, 2018, we observed 3 one-on-one meetings, with potential bidders. No fairness-related deficiencies were identified.

On November 16, 2018, we reviewed a request for extension to the closing date of LOI I and the proposed answer. On the same day, we reviewed responses to LOI I from some potential bidders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On November 19 and December 4, 2018, we reviewed responses from additional potential bidders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On April 18, 2019, we reviewed a draft LOI W8486-148564/J and provided fairness-related comments on April 19, 21 and 23, 2018. LOI J was published on buyandsell.gc.ca on April 24, 2019 (Document 7). Amendment 1 to LOI J was published on April 26, 2019 (Document 8). Amendment 2 to LOI J (Document 9) was also published on April 26, 2019 which advised that LOI J was cancelled.

On April 30, 2019, we reviewed a proposed approach to discussions with potential bidders and provided fairness-related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On May 10, 2019, we reviewed LOI W8486-148564/K which had been posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on May 2, 2019. The purpose of LOI K was to get industry feedback on the draft RFP, outline the rules of engagement and invite companies to register for one-on-one meetings expected to take place in late June, 2019. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 15, 2019, we reviewed several questions and proposed answers concerning the draft RFP that had been submitted by potential bidders, and the proposed approach that would be taken to answer questions received. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 21, 2019, we reviewed the proposed schedule for the upcoming one-on-one meetings. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 23, 2019, we reviewed invitations sent to potential bidders concerning one-on-one meetings and we attended a mini kick-off meeting with the new Contracting Authority. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 28, 2019, we reviewed questions from potential bidders and proposed answers. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 10, 2019, we reviewed a proposed communication to potential bidders concerning the upcoming one-on-one meetings. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 19 and 20, 2019, we observed 2 one-on-one meetings each day with potential bidders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On July 18, 23, 25, 26 and 30, 2019 we reviewed a summary of industry feedback in response to LOI K, and the approach to answering industry questions and proposed answers. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 28, 2019, we reviewed the proposed approach to answering a question from a potential bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On December 11 and 12, 2019, we reviewed the proposed approach to be taken concerning an issue with a potential bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On January 9, 2020, we reviewed the approach to be taken to answering certain questions form potential bidders concerning the draft RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On January 14, 2020, we reviewed LOI W8486-148564/L that had been posted on buyandsell.gc.ca on January 13, 2020 (Document 11) that changed the project solicitation number and other communications to the potential bidders. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On April 7, 2020, we reviewed the proposed content of an additional LOI concerning security requirements. The additional LOI was not subsequently published and instead potential bidders were notified by email on April 23, 2020, of the change in security requirements. No fairness deficiencies were identified

On April 14, 16, 19, 20, and 27, 2020, we reviewed the project status and proposed approach to communicating with industry, and the distribution and evaluation of proposals. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

The RFP was released to qualified suppliers on August 28, 2020 (Document 12) and on the same day we reviewed a draft Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP) informing other potential bidders as to the process to follow in order to obtain the RFP which would not be published on buyandsell.gc.ca. On August 31, 2020 the NPP was published on buyandsell.gc.ca (Document 13). We had no fairness-related comments.

During the period September 2 to December 11, 2020, we reviewed questions from industry and proposed communications with potential bidders. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On September 12 and 13, 2020, we reviewed proposed amendment 1 to the RFP (Document 14) and reviewed it on September 14 as published on buyandsell.gc.ca. Amendment 1 changed he bid closing date and made several other changes which were identified in the amendment posted on buyandsell.gc.ca.

On September 14, 2020, we advised the contracting authority of a potential fairness issue and during the period September 15 to October 1, 2020, we provided further detail concerning the potential fairness issue to the contracting authority. Appropriate action was taken by project officials to address the potential fairness issue.

On October 1, 2020, we reviewed proposed amendment 2 to the RFP (Document 15) which was sent to qualified suppliers and published on buyandsell.gc.ca on October 2, 2020. Amendment 2 changed the bid closing date.

During the period October 26 to 29, 2020, we reviewed and discussed the technical evaluation plan including the phased bid compliance process with project officials and provided fairness-related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On November 6, 2020, we reviewed proposed amendment 3 to the RFP (Document 16) which was sent to qualified suppliers and published on buyandsell.gc.ca on November 8, 2020. Amendment 3 made clarifications and corrections to the RFP which were not identified in the amendment posted on buyandsell.gc.ca but would be made available to suppliers that meet the security requirements identified in the NPP.

On November 25, 2020, we reviewed proposed amendment 4 to the RFP (Document 17) which was sent to qualified suppliers and published on buyandsell.gc.ca on November 26, 2020. Amendment 4 changed the bid closing date.

On December 7 2020, we reviewed proposed amendment 5 to the RFP (Document 18) which was sent to qualified suppliers and published on buyandsell.gc.ca on December 7, 2020. Amendment 5 made clarifications and corrections to the RFP which were not identified in the amendment posted on buyandsell.gc.ca but would be made available to suppliers that meet the security requirements identified in the NPP.

The RFP closed on December 16, 2020.

During the period December 16 to 30, 2020, we reviewed emails from the contracting authority concerning corrupted files received from a bidder that could not be opened. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials. We were advised on December 30, 2020 that the files had been opened successfully.

On January 4, 2021, we monitored a briefing provided to technical criteria evaluators. On the same day we monitored the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) evaluation kick-off meeting. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 5, 2021, we monitored the consensus evaluation of mandatory requirements, M1 to M11. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 6, 2021, we monitored meetings among project officials concerning the overall bid evaluation process, compliance assessment reports and joint venture bidders. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 7, 2021 we monitored the consensus evaluation of rated requirements R1 and R2. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 8, 2021, we monitored the consensus evaluation of ISED mandatory requirements. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On January 11, 2021, we monitored consensus evaluation of rated requirements R3, and R4. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 12, 2021, we monitored the ISED consensus evaluation meeting of mandatory and rated requirements. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 13, 2021, we monitored consensus evaluation meetings for rated requirements R6 and R10. On the same day, we reviewed the proposed Compliance Assessment Report (CAR) for each of 2 bidders and we monitored a project meeting concerning management of questions and clarifications to bidders. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 14, 2021, we monitored consensus evaluation meetings covering R8 and R11. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 15, 2021, we monitored consensus evaluation meetings covering mandatory requirements M1 to M11 for Joint Ventures and rated requirements R5, R7, and R9. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 20, 2021, we discussed the financial bid issue with the contracting authority. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 21, 22, 25, and 27 we discussed CAR response issues with project officials and monitored discussions among project officials concerning evaluation of CAR responses from bidders. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 28, 2021, we monitored the consensus evaluation of the ISED CAR response from a bidder. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On February 2, 2021, we monitored evaluators’ briefings. On the same day, we monitored the CAR consensus evaluation of R1, R2, R5, R6 and R7. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On February 3, 2021 we monitored evaluators briefing. On the same day, we monitored the CAR consensus evaluation of rated requirements R3 and R4. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On February 4, 2021, we monitored the CAR consensus evaluation of rated requirement R2. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On February 10, 11, 14, and 15, 2021 we discussed the phased bid compliance process with project officials. Fairness-related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On March 19, 2021, we reviewed by video conference the completed evaluation spreadsheets prepared by a team of 2 PWGSC officials. The spreadsheets were 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

Documents related to the solicitation W8485-163258/B are available through the MAISR project office or on buyandsell.gc.ca.

5. Addendum to the final report

August 9, 2021

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

On April 29, 2021, the contracting authority advised us that a contract had been awarded on April 21, 2021 to a bidder and provided us with the regret letters which had been sent to the 4 unsuccessful bidders on April 20, 2021. We reviewed the regret letters and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 17, 18 and 19, 2021, we monitored the debriefing of 3 unsuccessful bidders, 1 each day. During their debriefings, each of these 3 unsuccessful bidders requested a copy of its detailed scores which was then provided during its debriefing. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

The fourth unsuccessful bidder requested a detailed breakdown of its score in lieu of a debriefing, and it was provided to it on May 17, 2021. On May 21, 2021 the contracting authority advised us that the fourth unsuccessful bidder had requested some further explanations concerning the scores that had been assigned to its bid, and on May 25, 2021, we reviewed the proposed further detail to be provided and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 21, 2021, the contracting authority also advised us that the successful bidder had requested a debriefing concerning its bid submission and on May 31, 2021, we monitored the debriefing provided and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 2, 2021, the contracting authority advised us that, during a debriefing, an unsuccessful bidder had requested and been provided with a copy of its scores, and had now requested more detailed information concerning its individual scores on each rated requirement. We reviewed the proposed response and no fairness deficiencies were identified. On June 15, 2021, the contracting authority advised us that the same unsuccessful bidder had requested further detail on how its scores were determined. We reviewed the proposed response and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

On August 2, 2021, the contracting authority advised us that no further communications were expected to be received from bidders and the debriefing stage could be considered to be complete.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the MAISR Stage 2 In-Service Support procurement process:

It is our professional opinion that the MAISR Stage 2 In-Service Support procurement process that we observed or monitored was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.