HDT EXPEDITIONARY SYSTEMS INC.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
File No. PR-2015-060

Determination and reasons issued
Wednesday, July 6, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DETERMINATION
• STATEMENT OF REASONS
  • SUMMARY
  • PROCEDURAL HISTORY
  • RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE RFP
  • APPLICATION OF THE TRADE AGREEMENTS
  • ANALYSIS
    • Timeliness
    • Definition of “Damage”
    • Additional Grounds of Improper Evaluation
    • Third-Party Verification
  • COSTS
  • DETERMINATION

 

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

AND FURTHER TO a decision to conduct an inquiry into the complaint pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

BETWEEN

HDT EXPEDITIONARY SYSTEMS INC. Complainant

AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Government Institution

DETERMINATION

Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines that the complaint is not valid.

Pursuant to section 30.16 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal awards the Department of Public Works and Government Services its reasonable costs incurred in responding to the complaint, which costs are to be paid by HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc. In accordance with the Procurement Costs Guideline, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s preliminary indication of the level of complexity for this complaint is Level 1, and its preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award is $1,150. If any party disagrees with the preliminary indication of the level of complexity or the preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award, it may make submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, as contemplated by article 4.2 of the Procurement Costs Guideline. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to establish the final amount of the award.

Peter Burn
Peter Burn
Presiding Member

Tribunal Member: Peter Burn, Presiding Member

Counsel for the Tribunal: Alexandra Pietrzak

Registrar Officer: Chelsea McKiver

Complainant: HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc.

Counsel for the Complainant: Gordon Cameron

Government Institution: Department of Public Works and Governments Services

Counsel for the Government Institution: Susan D. Clarke

 Ian G. McLeod

 Roy Chamoun

 David D’Angela

 Kathleen McManus

Please address all communications to:

The Registrar
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Secretariat
333 Laurier Avenue West
15th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0G7

Telephone: 613-993-3595
Fax: 613-990-2439
E-mail: citt-tcce@tribunal.gc.ca

STATEMENT OF REASONS

SUMMARY

1. On February 23, 2016, HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc. (HDT) filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), pursuant to subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act,^[1] concerning a request for proposal (Solicitation No. W8476-155245/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND). The request for proposal (RFP) was for headquarters shelter systems (HQSS) and in-service support for the HQSS.
2. HDT alleged that PWGSC improperly determined that its planning shelter failed the mandatory criteria set out in the snow load test. In particular, HDT argued that PWGSC introduced an undisclosed criterion by evaluating whether or not HDT’s planning shelter had suffered “permanent deformation” as a result of the snow load test, and adopted an unreasonable definition of the term “damage”. HDT also argued that DND and PWGSC wrongly interfered in the evaluation process.
3. As a remedy, HDT requested that its bid be found to have passed the mandatory criteria in the snow load test, and therefore proceed to the subsequent phases of the evaluation process. In addition, HDT requested that it be awarded its reasonable costs associated with filing the complaint.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4. On April 15, 2015, PWGSC issued the RFP for HQSS and related in-service support on behalf of DND. The solicitation was initially scheduled to close on July 15, 2015, but after several amendments were issued the closing date was changed to September 4, 2015.
5. HDT submitted its bid in response to the RFP on or around September 4, 2015.
6. On November 3, 2015, PWGSC advised HDT that its bid was determined to be responsive in Phase 1, which consisted of a review of HDT’s proposal for mandatory and rated requirements. HDT was therefore invited to participate in Phase 2 of the evaluation process, which included a physical performance test of the bidders’ shelters under conditions simulating heavy snow loads (the snow load test).
7. Between December 7 and December 11, 2015, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted physical testing of HDT’s proposed planning shelter, including the snow load test.^[2]
8. On January 15, 2016, PWGSC wrote to HDT to advise that the test data sheet for the snow load test had not been completely filled out, as neither the “pass” nor “fail” check boxes were marked. PWGSC therefore attached a completed test data sheet which indicated that HDT’s planning shelter had failed the snow load test.
9. On January 22, 2016, HDT wrote to object to the results of the snow load test. In particular, HDT argued that the “deformation” of pins and leg structures noted by the evaluators did not constitute “damage” to the planning shelter, and HDT should therefore have been awarded a “pass” for that portion of the evaluation.
10. On February 9, 2016, PWGSC wrote to deny HDT’s request that the results of the snow load test be reversed, and confirmed its conclusion that HDT’s bid had failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP.
11. On February 23, 2016, HDT filed a complaint with the Tribunal.
12. On March 1, 2016, the Tribunal informed the parties that the complaint had been accepted for inquiry, as it met the requirements of subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act and the conditions set out in subsection 7(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations.^[3] In addition, the Tribunal issued a Postponement of Award of Contract Order, as requested by HDT in its complaint.
13. On March 11, 2016, PWGSC filed a request for an extension of time to file its Government Institution Report (GIR). The Tribunal granted this request and, as a result of the extension, informed the parties that the deadline for the issuance of its determination had been extended to 135 days after the filing of the complaint, pursuant to paragraph 12(c) of the Regulations.
14. On April 11, 2016, PWGSC filed its GIR with the Tribunal in accordance with rule 103 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules.^[4]
15. On April 21, 2016, HDT filed its comments on the GIR.
16. Given that there was sufficient information on the record to fully deliberate and decide upon the complaint, the Tribunal concluded that a hearing was not required and disposed of the complaint on the basis of the written information on the record.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE RFP

17. The complaint relates to the evaluation of the following mandatory criterion:

Planning Shelter shall operate and withstand, without collapse or damage, a minimum snow load capacity of 478.80 Pa + 10% tolerance, sustained for a period of twelve (12) hours and removed, while meeting all performance requirements and without the use of any additional support structures installed specifically to satisfy this requirement.^[5]

18. With respect to the evaluation of the mandatory and rated requirements, the RFP stated that:

DND has retained the services of a Third Party test facility to develop and undertake a program to verify the Headquarters Shelter System (HQSS) requirements (mandatory and rated) listed in Appendix A.^[6]

19. For the snow load test, the third party was required to:

1.Measure and record the horizontal projection area of the shelter roof.

2.Start the data acquisition system at 0.1 Hz to record the deflection.

3.Using boom lifts, apply the 478.80 Pa (10 lbs/ft²) load, longitudinally, and centered, to the roof surface so that the area covered equals the horizontal projection of the roof.

4.After the load is applied, record the deflection measurement.

5.Allow the shelter to rest under the load condition for 12 hours.

6.After 12 hours, record the final deflection and gradually remove the simulated load from the shelter.

7.Inspect the shelter for damage and record evidence of structural damage, seam separation, or fabric damage.^[7]

[Emphasis added]

20. Upon completing the verification, the RFP stated that the third party would produce:

[a] completed Mandatory and Point-Rated Criteria Verification table per Appendix A and B for each Bidder’s proposed HQSS Complex Configuration delivered for the Verification.^[8]

21. The third-party verification agency, which carried out the physical performance testing, was the NRC.

APPLICATION OF THE TRADE AGREEMENTS

22. The parties agree, and the Tribunal is satisfied, that the solicitation is covered under the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade.^[9] PWGSC contended that neither the North American Free Trade Agreement^[10] nor the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement^[11] applied to this procurement.
23. Although HDT initially argued that this procurement was subject to all three of the above-listed trade agreements, in its response to the GIR it confined its arguments to the AIT only. As such, it seems that HDT decided not to pursue its arguments that both NAFTA and the AGP should apply in addition to the AIT. Therefore, while it is not strictly necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether NAFTA and the AGP apply to this solicitation,^[12] the Tribunal will nonetheless comment on PWGSC’s arguments that they do not apply.
24. As noted by PWGSC, the goods and services being procured are classified under Federal Supply Classification Code N8340 (Tents and Tarpaulins).^[13] Both NAFTA (in Section B of Annex 1001.1b-1) and the AGP (in Annex 4 to Canada’s Appendix 1) provide exhaustive lists of goods purchased by DND which are subject to coverage under those respective agreements. The goods in issue, and their related services, are not included in either list, and are therefore exempt from coverage under NAFTA and the AGP when purchased by DND.
25. The procurement in issue was conducted by PWGSC on behalf of DND. When considering the application of the relevant trade agreements, the Tribunal has repeatedly held that a government institution acting as the contracting authority may simply be acting as an agent for another government institution. In such cases, the determination of the relevant government institution for the purposes of the application of the trade agreements will depend on a variety of factors, such as which department requires the actual goods or services, drafted the specifications, conducted the evaluation and will pay for the work, as well as other statements in the solicitation document indicating that the contracting authority is acting on behalf of another government institution.^[14]
26. In reviewing the RFP in issue, the Tribunal finds that there are multiple provisions which make it clear that PWGSC was acting as an agent for DND. For example, Appendix BB to Annex B of the Bidder Instructions and Requirements states the following:

1.2 Purpose/Objective

DND has retained the services of a Third Party test facility to develop and undertake a program to verify the Headquarters Shelter System (HQSS) requirements (mandatory and rated) listed in Appendix A.

1.3 Background

DND is in the process of acquiring a Headquarters Shelter System (HQSS) to partially replace an in‑service tactical shelter system with a more capable tactical command post shelter system, in support of Canadian Forces deployment in all operational environments.

1.4 Limitations

No provision has been made for the repetition of verifications. Only a few observers will be allowed at the testing site. These observers will be limited to DND members, PWGSC members, and Bidder representatives on a restricted basis. Final decisions of who will be allowed on site will be at the ultimate discretion of the DND Project Manager and PWGSC.^[15]

[Emphasis added]

27. On balance, these provisions suggest that this RFP was for the provision of planning shelters and related services for, and on behalf of, DND. Thus it is DND, and not PWGSC, which is the relevant government institution when deciding the applicability of the trade agreements. As such, the exclusions in both NAFTA and the AGP apply, and the solicitation is not subject to either of those trade agreements.
28. Nevertheless, as the AIT does apply to this solicitation, the Tribunal will proceed to determine whether the grounds of complaint raised by HDT are valid.

ANALYSIS

29. Subsection 30.14(1) of the CITT Act requires that, in conducting an inquiry, the Tribunal limit its considerations to the subject matter of the complaint. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Tribunal must determine whether the complaint is valid on the basis of whether the procedures and other requirements prescribed in respect of the designated contract have been observed. Section 11 of the Regulations provides that the Tribunal is required to determine whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements, which, as set out above, is the AIT.
30. Article 506(6) of the AIT provides as follows:

In evaluating tenders, a Party may take into account not only the submitted price but also quality, quantity, delivery, servicing, the capacity of the supplier to meet the requirements of the procurement and any other criteria directly related to the procurement that are consistent with Article 504. The tender documents shall clearly identify the requirements of the procurement, the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of bids and the methods of weighting and evaluating the criteria.

31. In cases where the application of Article 506(6) is at issue, the Tribunal does not generally substitute its judgments for that of the evaluators, unless the evaluators have not applied themselves in evaluating a bidder’s proposal, have ignored vital information provided in a proposal, have based their information on undisclosed criteria or have otherwise not conducted the evaluation in a procedurally fair way.^[16] In addition, the Tribunal is of the view that the responsibility for ensuring that a proposal is compliant with all essential criteria of a solicitation ultimately resides with the bidder.^[17] 

Timeliness

32. HDT asserted that, by assessing whether or not the proposed planning shelter experienced “permanent deformation” as a result of the snow load test, PWGSC applied a new evaluation criterion which was not included in the RFP, or otherwise communicated to bidders. As it was not included in the RFP, HDT argued that it had no opportunity to suggest a suitable alternate criterion, pre-stress its structure before testing to ensure it would not undergo any deformation as a result of the snow load test, or bid a different structure to address this new criterion.
33. While HDT is correct in stating that this term does not appear in the RFP or related amendments, it nonetheless conceded that “[t]he first time that HDT learned of this criterion was during the oral briefing at the Snow Load Test . . .”^[18] of December 9-10, 2015. In fact, HDT confirmed that during the verbal briefing the representative for the NRC:

announced for the first time at the Snow Load test that the components of the structure must not demonstrate any permanent deformation as a result of the Snow Load Test.^[19]

[Emphasis added]

34. As such, by no later than December 10, 2015 (the last day of the snow load test), HDT was aware that its proposed planning shelter would be evaluated on whether or not any permanent deformation occurred during the snow load test.
35. Pursuant to section 6 of the Regulations, a potential supplier has 10 working days from the date on which it first became aware, or have become aware, of its ground of complaint to either make an objection to the relevant government institution or file a complaint with the Tribunal. As noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in IBM Canada Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard (Canada) Ltd.:

potential suppliers are required not to wait for the attribution of a contract before filing any complaint they might have with respect to the process. They are expected to keep a constant vigil and to react as soon as they become aware or reasonably should have become aware of a flaw in the process.^[20]

[Emphasis added]

36. HDT’s own evidence demonstrates that, not only was it made aware prior to the snow load test that its proposed planning shelter would be evaluated to determine whether it demonstrated any permanent deformation, but it advised the NRC’s representative that “there would likely be some permanent deformation” as a result of that test.^[21]
37. Moreover, in an affidavit, Mr. Whittier, Director of Engineering for HDT, stated that, after the snow load test was completed, there was a debate amongst HDT, DND and PWGSC as to the appropriateness of that criterion. Mr. Whittier argued that considering permanent deformation to constitute damage was “in essence redefining the pass/fail criteria.”^[22] According to the evidence in Mr. Whittier’s affidavit, this objection was expressed directly to the NRC, DND and PWGSC officials involved in the evaluation, and clearly identified HDT’s concern regarding the alleged alteration of the evaluation criteria for the snow load test. The Tribunal considers that Mr. Whittier, in so doing, provided an objection regarding the decision to evaluate its planning shelter for permanent deformation.
38. In response to this objection, Mr. Whittier noted that the NRC representative stated he would not make a pass/fail decision, “but would document the results of the test and submit the test report to the DND and PWGSC for them to make the ultimate decision.”^[23] While Mr. Whittier stated he could not recall what position PWGSC took on the matter, his evidence was that:

DND as the Technical Authority took a different position, arguing that any permanent deformation was an indication of plastic deformation and showed that the structure was close to failure.^[24]

39. As such, at the time of the snow load test, HDT was not only aware that the NRC intended to evaluate whether permanent deformation occurred, but that DND’s position was that permanent deformation was a sign of imminent structural failure. Accordingly, Mr. Whittier’s objection had been denied.
40. Furthermore, Mr. Whittier, as the representative for HDT, signed the test data sheet dated December 9, 2015, in which the NRC recorded observations regarding the permanent deformation of components of HDT’s planning shelter after the snow load test.^[25] It was therefore clear that the NRC would not only determine whether permanent deformation had occurred, but would specifically reference such deformation in the comments evaluating the performance of HDT’s planning shelter.
41. Despite this knowledge, HDT did not file an objection to the alleged use of undisclosed criteria until its letter of January 22, 2016.^[26]
42. While HDT may not have known that it had been assessed a “fail” on the snow load test until PWGSC’s letter of January 15, 2016,^[27] the evidence shows that HDT became aware of its ground of complaint during the verbal briefing before the snow load test. Once HDT became aware that “permanent deformation” was definitively going to be used as a criterion to evaluate the snow load test, it had 10 working days to bring a complaint to the Tribunal regarding what it believed to be the introduction of a previously undisclosed criterion. It was not open to HDT to adopt a “wait and see” approach, based on whether or not the alleged undisclosed criterion had a negative impact on its bid.^[28]
43. As a result of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that HDT’s argument that PWGSC used an undisclosed criterion to evaluate the snow load test is not timely.

Definition of “Damage”

44. The Tribunal has found that HDT’s argument regarding the alleged use of an undisclosed criterion is not timely. It will now determine whether or not PWGSC’s conclusion that HDT’s planning shelter failed the mandatory criterion of the snow load test was reasonable.
45. In doing so, it is well established that the Tribunal will not substitute its judgment for that of the evaluators, unless the evaluators have not applied themselves in evaluating a bidder’s proposal, have ignored vital information provided in a proposal, have based their information on undisclosed criteria or have otherwise not conducted the evaluation in a procedurally fair way.^[29]
46. When evaluating the performance of HDT’s planning shelter during the snow load test, the NRC noted the following:

More than half of pins connecting roof structure to leg structure demonstrate permanent bending deformation after load application.

At least two of the leg structure lower tubes demonstrate permanent deformation after load application making it difficult to telescope disassembling.^[30]

47. In support of its conclusion that HDT’s planning shelter failed the snow load test, PWGSC referred to the Oxford Dictionary, in which the term “damage” is defined to mean “physical harm impairing the value, usefulness, or normal function of something”.^[31] As a result of this permanent deformation, HDT’s planning shelter was found to have sustained damage, and therefore failed the snow load test.^[32]
48. HDT argued that PWGSC’s conclusion was contrary to the definition of “damage” in the RFP. In particular, HDT argued that the definition included in the Test Operating Procedure 10-2-174 (the TOP) was incorporated by reference into the terms of the RFP. However, as noted by PWGSC, the TOP was only incorporated for a limited part of the verification testing.^[33] There is no indication in the RFP that the TOP was being incorporated in its entirety, or that the definition of the term “damage” included in the TOP was being adopted by the RFP. Thus, the Tribunal finds that the definition of “damage” set out in the TOP is not determinative of the issue.
49. HDT also contended that the deformation actually observed by the NRC evaluator was part of the “deliberate design” of the planning shelter.^[34] HDT noted that it:

has numerous articulating frame shelters, structurally identical to the HQSS Planning Shelter, already in service with the Canadian forces with respect to its contracts for climate-controlled shelter tents as a result of the award of the ColPro and DCCSS contracts to HDT.^[35]

50. As such, HDT argued that PWGSC used a definition which was “inappropriate from an engineering/design standard”.^[36]
51. Whether or not HDT has been awarded previous contracts for RFPs seeking HQSS planning shelters is not relevant to the reasonable interpretation of the criteria at issue in this particular RFP. The Tribunal has repeatedly held that bidders should treat all solicitations as independent, and the terms of a previous solicitation are not determinative of those of a new one.^[37] A procuring entity has the right to determine its own requirements and to establish its specifications, and there is no obligation for a procuring entity to incorporate the terms of a previous solicitation into a new RFP.^[38]
52. It is well established that the terms of tender documents should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, and within the context in which they are used.^[39] Moreover, the Tribunal has previously noted that the usage of a term in an RFP should be logically connected to the tasks/deliverables set out in the RFP.^[40] In this regard, as noted by PWGSC, the mandatory requirements of the RFP stated the following:

The HQSS shall have a service life (starting at the date of first usage of the HQSS) and sustainability of at least 15 years when used in any combination of the climatic and environmental conditions in accordance with paragraph 1.40.

The HQSS will be expected to be moved and set up 36 times per year, and stricken and moved 36 times per year.^[41]

53. Consequently, the definition of “damage” used by PWGSC will be reasonable if it is consistent with the ordinary meaning of that term when viewed through the context of the sustainability and usage requirements described above.
54. In the current circumstances, HDT did not dispute that more than half of the pins and two of the leg structures of its planning shelter were permanently bent or deformed after the snow load test. The Tribunal finds that, when given its ordinary meaning, considered in context, and understood within the scope and objectives of the RFP, the evaluators acted reasonably in considering this permanent bending and deformation to be damage, and therefore concluding that HDT’s planning shelter did not meet the mandatory criterion in issue.
55. As a result of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that HDT’s complaint in this respect is not valid.

Additional Grounds of Improper Evaluation

56. In addition to the foregoing, HDT also alleged that, during the snow load test, its proposed planning shelter was improperly evaluated on the detachment of the legs, ability for the legs to telescope, and ability to be disassembled while “functioning in its original design”^[42]. HDT contended that none of those criteria were included in the test procedures of the RFP, which simply required that disassembly was to be done in 30 minutes, by six people, using only a hammer and stake puller.
57. The Tribunal’s finding that the evaluators acted reasonably in determining that HDT’s planning shelter was damaged, and therefore failed the snow load test, makes such further arguments moot. An examination of these alleged additional undisclosed criteria would not change the results of the snow load test, and thus the evaluators’ conclusion that HDT had not satisfied the necessary mandatory criteria to proceed to subsequent stages of the evaluation.
58. The Tribunal will now analyze HDT’s final ground of complaint.

Third-Party Verification

59. As noted by HDT, the NRC representative did not fill in either the “pass” or “fail” boxes on HDT’s test data sheet when completing the evaluation. While the NRC representative did record observations about the condition of the planning shelter, there was no commentary referencing either a pass or fail. In fact, PWGSC acknowledged that the “fail” box was not filled in at the time of the testing, and that it was only completed after it had reviewed the matter with the NRC Test Engineer and the DND Technical Authority.^[43]
60. By allegedly altering the test data sheet to indicate that HDT’s planning shelter failed the snow load test, HDT contended that DND improperly intervened in the third-party verification testing that was performed by the NRC. HDT stated that DND therefore interfered with the decision-making process contrary to the terms of the RFP, and that the “fail” assessment for the snow load test was invalid.
61. While the terms of the RFP may suggest that the NRC was to determine whether the planning shelter would ultimately be deemed to pass or fail the snow load test, the Tribunal notes that HDT’s own evidence show that it was aware of the active role DND and PWGSC would play in making this determination as early as the snow load test. In his affidavit, Mr. Whittier stated that, after the planning shelter was disassembled following the snow load test, the NRC representative filled out the notes for the test data sheet, but did not complete the pass or fail columns.^[44] Rather, the NRC representative advised that (after a discussion with the representatives from HDT, DND and PWGSC):

the NRC would not make a pass/fail decision but would document the results of the test and submit the test report to the DND and PWGSC for them to make the ultimate decision.^[45]

[Emphasis added]

62. Thus, HDT was aware by no later than December 10, 2015 (the date when the snow load test was completed) that the decision as to whether its planning shelter passed or failed the snow load test would be made by DND and PWGSC, and not the NRC.
63. As discussed above, it is well established that bidders must file an objection or bring a complaint to the Tribunal within 10 working days of becoming aware of a potential ground of complaint.^[46] The evidence of Mr. Whittier shows that HDT was aware of its potential ground of complaint as of December 10, 2015, period contemplated by the Regulations.
64. As such, the Tribunal finds that this ground of complaint is not timely.

COSTS

65. Pursuant to section 30.16 of the CITT Act, the Tribunal awards PWGSC its reasonable costs incurred in responding to the complaint, which costs are to be paid by HDT. In accordance with the Procurement Costs Guideline (the Guideline), the Tribunal’s preliminary indication of the level of complexity for this complaint is Level 1, as the portion of the procurement at issue was relatively straightforward, and the complaint related to the correct evaluation of one mandatory criterion. In addition, the proceedings were straightforward and did not involve complicated procedural issues.
66. As such, the Tribunal’s preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award is $1,150. If any party disagrees with the preliminary indication of the level of complexity or the preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award, it may make submissions to the Tribunal, as contemplated by article 4.2 of the Guideline. The Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to establish the final amount of the award.

DETERMINATION

67. Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal determines that the complaint is not valid.