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.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT

2. The complaint concerns a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of Public Works and Government Services^[3] (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND) for the provision of 16 items, including headsets and spare parts (Solicitation No. W8486-163183/A). The RFP was cancelled before PWGSC awarded contracts for any of the 16 items.^[4]
3. Telecore alleged that it should have received a contract for three of the items in the RFP since it proposed the lowest-priced compliant offer for items 1, 2 and 15. Telecore also submitted that the cancellation of the RFP was unnecessary, unfair and nontransparent.
4. As a remedy, Telecore requested that it be awarded a contract for items 1, 2 and 15 or that it be compensated for its lost profits.

ANALYSIS

5. The Tribunal must be satisfied that four conditions are met before it can accept a complaint for inquiry: (1) the complaint was submitted in a timely manner; (2) the complainant is a potential supplier; (3) the complaint is in respect of a designated contract; and (4) the complaint discloses a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been conducted in accordance with an applicable trade agreement.^[5]
6. At issue in this complaint is the third condition, namely, whether the complaint is in regard to a designated contract.
7. 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” [emphasis added]. Subsection 3(1) of the Regulations further provides that “. . . any contract or class of contracts concerning the procurement of goods or services or any combination of goods or services, as described in [the trade agreements], that has been or is proposed to be awarded by a government institution, is a designated contract” [emphasis added].
8. As noted above, the RFP was cancelled prior to any contract award. Telecore acknowledged that PWGSC informed it that the RFP was cancelled on May 27, 2016, because “. . . DND could not evaluate items due to a poorly written requirement.”^[6]
9. According to Telecore, PWGSC should have proceeded with the RFP and awarded it the contract for items 1, 2 and 15 notwithstanding the “poorly written requirement”. The Tribunal disagrees on the basis of the information filed with the complaint. PWGSC was permitted to cancel the RFP. Indeed, by incorporating section 11 of the 2003 (2015-07-03) Standard Instructions - Goods or Services - Competitive Requirements in the RFP, PWGSC had the “right” to cancel the RFP “at any time”.^[7]
10. Nothing in the complaint indicates that PWGSC acted unnecessarily, unfairly or in bad faith towards Telecore or any other bidder by cancelling the RFP. Instead, the Tribunal finds that PWGSC was compelled to cancel the RFP for a legitimate reason—DND could not properly evaluate bids due to a poorly written requirement. Had the RFP not been cancelled, the Tribunal finds that there may have been a risk of an improper or unfair evaluation and end result. Therefore, PWGSC upheld the integrity of the procurement process by cancelling the RFP.
11. Moreover, Telecore did not provide any information in support of its claim that PWGSC could have still awarded it a contract for items 1, 2 and 15 in spite of the problematic wording of the RFP.
12. Given that the RFP was legitimately cancelled, there no longer exists a contract “. . . that has been or is proposed to be awarded by a government institution . . .”, as provided in section 30.1 of the CITT Act. As such, the complaint does not relate to a “designated contract”.
13. Consequently, not have jurisdiction to accept the complaint for inquiry and considers the matter closed.

DECISION

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