HEARTZAP SERVICES INC.
File No. PR-2015-015

Decision made
Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Decision and reasons issued
Thursday, July 9, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DECISION
• STATEMENT OF REASONS
  • COMPLAINT
  • PROCUREMENT PROCESS
  • ANALYSIS
  • DECISION

 

IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed pursuant to subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.).

BY

HEARTZAP SERVICES INC.

AGAINST

CANADA POST CORPORATION

DECISION

Pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. The complaint is premature.

Peter Burn
Peter Burn
Presiding Member

STATEMENT OF REASONS

1. Subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act^[1] provides that, subject to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations,^[2] a potential supplier may file a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning any aspect of the procurement process that relates to a designated contract and request the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. Subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act provides that, subject to the Regulations, after the Tribunal determines that a complaint complies with subsection 30.11(2) of the CITT Act, it shall decide whether to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

COMPLAINT

2. This is a complaint by HeartZAP Services Inc. (HeartZAP) concerning a Request for Quote (RFQ) (Solicitation No. 415NN15SPN65) for the supply of automatic external defibrillators by Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post).
3. HeartZAP objected to the solicitation having been awarded to Rescue 7 on the grounds that its proposal did not meet two of the essential requirements, that Rescue 7 may not have had the lowest overall price and that there may been a conflict of interest between Canada Post and Rescue 7.
4. As a remedy, HeartZAP requested that Canada Post re-evaluate the bids.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS

5. On May 15, 2015, Canada Post issued the RFQ.
6. On May 21, 2015, HeartZAP submitted its proposal to Canada Post.
7. On May 22, 2015, the RFQ closed.
8. On June 15, 2015, Canada Post awarded the contract to Rescue 7.
9. On June 25, 2015, on the basis of the grounds cited above, HeartZAP objected to Canada Post’s award of the contract to Rescue 7.
10. On June 29, 2015, HeartZAP filed its complaint with the Tribunal but did not include a response from Canada Post to its objection.

ANALYSIS

11. Subsection 6(2) of the Regulations provides that a potential supplier may file a complaint with the Tribunal where it has made an objection to the relevant government institution and that government institution has denied it relief. This is to be “. . . within 10 working days after the day on which the potential supplier has actual or constructive knowledge of the denial of relief, if the objection was made within 10 working days after the day on which its basis became known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier.”
12. HeartZAP made its objection to Canada Post on June 25, 2015. The Tribunal notes that this appears to be within 10 working days of HeartZAP having discovered the grounds of its complaint.
13. Given that Canada Post has not provided a response to the objection made by HeartZAP, the Tribunal finds that HeartZAP has not yet received a denial of relief with respect to its alleged grounds of complaint, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the Regulations.
14. Consequently, the Tribunal finds the complaint to be premature.
15. The Tribunal’s decision does not preclude HeartZAP from returning to the Tribunal within 10 working days of receiving a denial of relief from Canada Post. Specifically, if Canada Post fails to give a response to HeartZAP’s objection within 30 days of the issuance of these reasons, the Tribunal will deem the failure to respond to be a constructive denial of relief. HeartZAP may then file a new complaint with the Tribunal, within 10 working days following that date.
16. In the event that HeartZAP files a new complaint, the Tribunal directs HeartZAP to pay particular attention to the filing requirements of subsections 30.11(1) and (2) of the CITT Act. In particular, HeartZAP should demonstrate that the complaint relates to a designated contract subject to the trade agreements, in accordance with section 3 of the Regulations, and provide the complete solicitation documents. HeartZAP may also request that the Tribunal consider the documents that it has already filed alongside the new complaint.

DECISION

17. Pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. The complaint is premature.