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. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT

3. On July 12, 2018, Insight Safety and Sports Inc. (Insight) filed a complaint with the Tribunal regarding a procurement (Solicitation No. 21120-18950/A) issued on January 5, 2018, by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of Correctional Service Canada (CSC) for the provision of high-strength puncture-resistant gloves^[3].
4. Insight alleged that the score achieved by the successful bidder raised questions regarding the evaluation conducted by PWGSC. In support of its allegations, Insight presented calculations, using the formula defined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the successful bidder’s technical merit score, to suggest that the successful bidder’s proposed gloves would have achieved a puncture resistance of 466.67 newton (N): a score it considered inconceivable and one that had never been attained by any other large and/or well-recognized firms. According to Insight, the maximum puncture resistance that the winning bidder’s product could have achieved, according to its testing, was 300 N. Insight also questioned the price bid by the successful bidder given the supposed quality of the product and high costs related to production. Finally, Insight argued that successful bidder could not have supplied the product as it was not advertised on its website.
5. As a remedy, Insight requested that the designated contract be terminated and the bids be re‑evaluated by having the puncture resistance test conducted by an independent laboratory.

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

6. On July 11, 2018, Insight was informed by e-mail that its bid was unsuccessful and that the resulting contract had been awarded to Martin & Levesque (1983) Inc. for a total amount of CAD 219,027.38. Insight learned that even though its bid was fully compliant with the terms of the RFP, the successful bidder had received a score of 93 (combined rating of technical merit and price), whereas it had only received a combined rating score of 55.
7. On July 12, 2018, Insight made an objection to PWGSC, challenging the puncture resistance score of the successful bidder. PWGSC responded later that same day, denying the basis of the objection and confirming the technical score of the winning bid, indicating that its puncture result score was not above 400 N.
8. Also on July 12, 2018, Insight filed its complaint with the Tribunal. The Tribunal requested further documentation, including correspondence between Insight and PWGSC, and Insight’s bid. Upon receipt of these documents, the Tribunal deemed the complaint to be complete and properly filed on July 18, 2018.

ANALYSIS

9. Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Regulations, the Tribunal may conduct an inquiry into the complaint if the following conditions are met:

• the complaint has been filed within the time limits prescribed by section 6;^[4]
• the complainant is an actual or potential supplier;^[5]
• the complaint is in respect of a designated contract;^[6] and
• the information provided discloses a reasonable indication that the government institution did not conduct the procurement in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.^[7]

10. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the fourth condition has not been met: Insight’s complaint does not disclose a reasonable indication that the applicable trade agreements were breached.^[8]
11. The applicable trade agreements require that procuring entities base their evaluations upon the stated (mandatory) requirements of tender notices or documentation.^[9] Only bidders that comply with those requirements may be considered for an award.^[10]
12. In this case, the RFP stated that the procurement would be awarded on the basis of a formula that combined a puncture resistance test and price: 70% of the total score would be allotted for the puncture resistance test and 30% for price. Section 4.1.1.2 (“Technical Merit”) of the RFP stated that the “scoring of the technical is done by giving full marks to the highest result of the puncture resistance test with the other bids being given a prorated score”. Accordingly, the successful bidder’s technical score for puncture resistance would necessarily be 70/70.
13. As noted above, Insight attempted to use the winning bidder’s total score to calculate its puncture resistance score. The Tribunal finds, however, that Insight’s calculations cannot be used to determine the puncture resistance score of the successful bidder. More specifically, Insight’s calculations do not demonstrate that the successful bidder’s puncture resistance score was over 450 N. No evidence was adduced and the calculations were solely based on hypothetical assumptions.
14. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the complaint does not disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement was not conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.

DECISION

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