Maintenance of Electronic Security System Equipment

On this page

• Attestation of assurance
• Activity requirement
• Fairness monitoring engagement and observations
• Reference documents
• Addendum to the final report

Attestation of assurance

The fairness monitor (FM) hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement below concerning the Maintenance of Electronic Security System Equipment (ESEM) procurement process up to and including the conclusion of the evaluation phase.

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

Original signed by:

Activity requirement

RFP Solutions Inc. was engaged on April 17, 2023 as an FM to observe the procurement process for the ESEM, issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada on behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada under solicitation WS4365275858. RFP Solutions Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

This report covers the activities of the FM, during the request for proposal (RFP) evaluation phase from April 17, 2023 to June 26, 2024.

The RFP is to procure a contractor in each of 5 workstreams for regional maintenance programs for electronic security systems and associated equipment at correctional institutions across Canada. If 1 bidder is awarded contracts for all 5 workstreams, the bidder is eligible to be awarded a contract for workstream 6 to act a contractor national maintenance specialist. Eligibility to be awarded a contract for workstream 6 is based on a compliant bid being submitted by the bidder. Workstreams 1 to 5 are to provide support services including the following maintenance elements:

• preventive maintenance
• corrective maintenance
• lifecycle management
• resource retention strategy
• resource management
• inventory management
• asset management support
• reporting and documentation

Workstream 6 is to provide a contractor national maintenance specialist to:

• administer the national computerized maintenance management system
• provide expert technical advice on maintenance issues
• develop standard scheduled maintenance plans and procedures
• provide overall coordination across the maintenance program

We reviewed all of 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 this section

• Request for proposal
• Evaluation phase

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we:

• familiarized ourselves with the relevant documents
• observed the RFP and evaluation phases
• identified fairness-related matters to the contracting authority (CA)
• ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate

Request for proposal

The RFP was issued via CanadaBuys on January 11, 2024. The FM reviewed several RFP drafts prior to its release and provided comments which were addressed prior to the release.

Nine amendments to the RFP were issued between January 19, 2024 and April 10, 2024 to respond to industry questions and revise the RFP terms and conditions. The FM reviewed the amendments prior to their release. The FM provided comments on the amendments which were addressed prior to the release.

An English language bidders’ conference was conducted on January 31, 2024; representatives from 3 companies attended. A French language bidders’ conference was conducted on February 1, 2024; representatives from 2 companies attended. The bidders’ conferences were conducted via online meeting. The FM reviewed presentation material prior to the meetings and observed both meetings. No fairness concerns were identified.

Three bids across the 6 workstreams were received by the time the RFP closed on April 12, 2024, at 2 pm Eastern standard time. Each workstream received the following number of bids:

• workstream 1: 2 bids
• workstream 2: 1 bid
• workstream 3: 2 bids
• workstream 4: 2 bids
• workstream 5: 2 bids
• workstream 6: 1 bid

The FM reviewed the way the bids were received and managed with the CA. No fairness concerns were identified.

Evaluation phase

Prior to the start of bid evaluation, the FM reviewed the evaluation guidelines, including the:

• evaluator responsibilities
• code of conduct
• security
• confidentiality
• conflict of interest requirements

The FM reviewed the evaluation workbook to be used by the evaluation team for alignment to the published RFP as amended. Evaluator training was provided to the 3 members of the evaluation team by the CA and observed by the FM. No fairness concerns were identified.

Following RFP closing, a review of the bids under phase 1 of the phased bid compliance process (PBCP) was conducted by the CA. This review identified that 1 bid under workstream 1 did not constitute a bid in response to the RFP. As a result, it was set-aside with no consideration given thereto. All other bids were determined eligible to proceed to the next phase of the evaluation process. The FM reviewed the results with the CA. No fairness concerns were identified.

An evaluation kick-off meeting was conducted on April 16, 2024 by the CA to review the evaluation process. It was attended by the 3 evaluators. The FM observed the meeting. No fairness concerns were identified.

Each evaluator reviewed the bids individually. The first consensus evaluation meetings under phase 2 of the PBCP were conducted on May 14 and 15, 2024, to evaluate the bids against the mandatory and point rated technical criteria. A second consensus evaluation meeting was conducted on May 30, 2024 to affirm requirements for compliance assessment reports (CAR) for additional information. CARs for additional information were issued on May 30, 2024 in respect of 2 bidders across 3 of the workstreams as follows:

• workstream 3: 1 bidder
• workstream 4: 2 bidders
• workstream 5: 1 bidder

At the request of 1 of the bidders, Canada extended the deadline to provide responses to the CARs. One bidder responded by June 10, 2024, within the requested timeframe. Following the receipt of the CARs for the non-compliant items, Canada also issued CARs to the compliant bids from workstreams 1, 2, 3 and 5. The evaluation committee met on June 18, 2024 to finalize the evaluation of the mandatory and point rated technical criteria based on the CAR responses and in consideration of the originally submitted bid where no CAR response had been received.

The evaluation of the mandatory and point rated technical criteria identified the following number of compliant bids for each workstream:

• workstream 1: 2 bids received—1 bid was compliant with the technical criteria
• workstream 2: 1 bid received—1 bid was compliant with the technical criteria
• workstream 3: 2 bids received—2 bids were compliant with the technical criteria
• workstream 4: 2 bids received—1 bid was compliant with the technical criteria
• workstream 5: 2 bids received—2 bids were compliant with the technical criteria
• workstream 6: 1 bid received—0 bids were compliant with the technical criteria

The FM observed the May 15, May 30 and June 18, 2024 consensus meetings and reviewed the results. No fairness concerns were identified.

In accordance with the RFP, the pricing envelopes had already been separately opened and safeguarded by the CA, and the CA determined the total bid amounts. Because workstreams 3 and 5 each received 2 compliant bids, the top ranked bidder in each of those workstreams was identified on June 18, 2024 at the conclusion of the consensus evaluation of the mandatory and point rated technical criteria. Financial clarifications were issued relative to workstreams 1 and 2 because each received only 1 compliant bid to determine if the prices were reasonable to recommend contract award. The clarifications were received on June 14 and 20, 2024 respectively and the top ranked bidders were confirmed in each. Workstream 6 will not be awarded because the same contractor will not be awarded all workstreams 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The FM reviewed the financial evaluation and the evaluated cost per point for the 4 compliant bids and confirmed with the CA the formulas were applied as set out in the RFP. Following the confirmation of the top ranked bidder, the CA finalized the overall results which were reviewed with the FM. No fairness concerns were identified.

Reference documents

Documents related to solicitation WS4365275858 are available through the project office.

Addendum to the final report

September 4, 2024

Addendum to the final report dated June 26, 2024 for the ESEM.

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

The 2 successful bidders were notified in writing of contract award on June 28, 2024. One successful bidder was awarded contracts for workstreams 1 and 2 and the other was awarded contracts for workstreams 3, 4 and 5. The FM reviewed the award letters before they were issued and reviewed the contracts for alignment with the RFP.

The unsuccessful bidder on workstreams 3, 4, 5 and 6 (there were no unsuccessful bidders on workstreams 1 and 2) was notified on the same date that they were entitled to a debriefing on the evaluation results. The FM reviewed the notification to the unsuccessful bidder before it was issued.

One bidder requested a debriefing that was conducted on August 21, 2024. The FM reviewed the contracting authority and technical authority’s notes prepared for the debriefing for alignment to the consensus observed prior to the meeting and was present for and observed the debriefing. During the debriefing, the bidder requested a copy of the debriefing notes on the evaluation of their bids which was provided by the CA on August 22, 2024. The FM reviewed the copy of the debriefing notes provided for alignment to the consensus outcomes and debriefing.

The contract awards were published on CanadaBuys on July 1, 2024.

In reviewing the awarded contracts and observing the debriefing no fairness concerns were observed.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement below concerning the ESEM procurement process up to and including the conclusion of the contract award and debriefing activities.

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

Original signed by: