POULIN ÉLECTRIQUE INC.
File No. PR-2015-037

Decision made
Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Decision and reasons issued
Friday, November 6, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DECISION
• STATEMENT OF REASONS
  • 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

POULIN ÉLECTRIQUE INC.

AGAINST

CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY

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.

Daniel Petit
Daniel Petit
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.
2. The complaint relates to a Request for Proposals (solicitation No. 9F030-20150391), hereinafter RFP, issued by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) for the provision of various electrical services at the CSA in Saint-Hubert.
3. Poulin Électrique Inc. claimed that the CSA incorrectly declared its proposal non-compliant with certain terms and conditions of the RFP. It further claimed that it did not have access to all the information relevant to the RFP and that the current supplier was favoured in the procurement process.
4. Subsection 30.11(1) of the CITT Act limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to “. . . a complaint . . . concerning any aspect of the procurement process that relates to a designated contract . . . » [emphasis added]. In addition, subsection 7(1) of the Regulations, which sets out the conditions that must be met in order for the Tribunal to inquire into a complaint, stipulates inter alia that the complaint must be in respect of a “designated contract”.
5. Furthermore, section 30.1 of the CITT Act defines a “designated contract” as “. . . a contract for the supply of goods or services that has been or is proposed to be awarded by a government institution and that is designated or of a class of contracts designated by the regulations”.
6. Pursuant to section 30.1 of the CITT Act, a designated contact is therefore defined in part as a contract for the supply of goods or services that was awarded by a government institution. Section 30.1 defines “government institution” as “. . . any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any other body or office, that is designated by the regulations”.
7. In this regard, subsection 3(2) of the Regulations designates as government institutions the federal government entities or the government enterprises set out in the following sections of the potentially applicable trade agreements: the Schedule of Canada in Annex 1001.1a-1 and Annex 1001.1a-2 of the North American Free Trade Agreement,^[3] under the heading “CANADA in Annex 1 and Annex 3 of the Agreement on Government Procurement,^[4] the Schedule of Canada in Annex Kbis-01.1-1 and Annex Kbis‑01.1-2 of Chapter Kbis of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement,^[5] the Schedule of Canada in Annex 1401.1-1 and Annex 1401.1-2 of Chapter Fourteen of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement,^[6] the Schedule of Canada in Annex 1401.1-1 and Annex 1401.1-2 of Chapter Fourteen of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement,^[7] the Schedule of Canada in Annex 14-A of Chapter Fourteen of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement,^[8] the Schedule of Canada in Annex 17.1 and Annex 17.2 of Chapter Seventeen of the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement,^[9] the Schedule of Canada in Annex 1 and Annex 2 of Chapter Sixteen of the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement^[10] and the federal government entities referred to in Chapter 5 of the Agreement on Internal Trade.^[11]
8. The RFP at issue relates to a contract for the procurement of services by the CSA. However, the CSA is not listed in any of the relevant schedules or annexes of the trade agreements. In addition, the CSA is specifically excluded from the scope of Chapter 5 of the AIT pursuant to Annex 502.2A of the AIT.
9. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the CSA is not a federal government entity or a government enterprise covered by the agreements and, as such, it is not a “government institution” within the meaning of section 30.1 of the CITT Act.
10. On this basis, the Tribunal concludes that the contract that relates to this procurement process is not a designated contract.
11. Given that the subject procurement does not relate to a designated contract, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.

DECISION

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