FISHER, FOLTA IRM INC.
Determinations
FISHER, FOLTA IRM INC.
File No. PR-2003-062
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY FACSIMILE
November 21, 2003
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Re: |
Fisher, Folta IRM Inc. (File No. PR-2003-062) |
I wish to inform you that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) has reviewed the complaint submitted by Fisher, Folta IRM Inc. (Fisher) regarding a procurement (Solicitation No. 59017-030443/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for the provision of services of an Information Services Architect.
The Tribunal notes that Fisher made an objection to PWGSC on October 24, 2003, and filed its complaint with the Tribunal on November 10, 2003, before PWGSC had responded to the objection. Normally, the Tribunal would consider this complaint to be premature because sufficient time has not elapsed for there to be considered a denial of relief by PWGSC. However, given the nature of this complaint, the Tribunal has made an exception in this case and has considered the complaint to be properly filed. The Tribunal (Presiding Member: Ogilvy) has decided not to initiate an inquiry into this complaint.
Subsection 7(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (the Regulations) sets out three conditions that must be satisfied before the Tribunal may conduct an inquiry in respect of a complaint. One of these conditions is that the complaint, and any other information examined by the Tribunal in respect of the complaint, disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been carried out in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.
Fisher alleges that PWGSC improperly disqualified its proposal based on a hidden requirement that was in violation of its GOL supply arrangement. Pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Regulations, a complaint shall be filed with the Tribunal no later than 10 working days after the day on which the basis of the complaint become known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier. With respect to the ground of complaint that the security clearance requirement was in violation of the GOL supply arrangement, the Tribunal finds that the time limit to file a complaint about the wording of the RFP would have been within ten days from the time Fisher reviewed the RFP. This element of Fisher’s complaint has not been filed within the time limits prescribed by the Regulations.
With respect to the security requirement, itself, the Tribunal notes that the requirement that any proposed personnel should hold a valid Enhanced Reliability screening directly with the Bidder, granted or approved by the Canadian and International Industry Security Division at the time of bid closing, appears in the certificate that had to be signed by the bidder. The Security Requirements section of the RFP also clearly indicates that the screening must be held with the contractor. As such, the Tribunal is of the opinion that, in finding Fisher’s proposal to be non-responsive, PWGSC followed the terms of the RFP and, therefore, the complaint does not disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been carried out in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that it would be inconsequential to consider Fisher’s other ground of complaint with respect to the score it received for the rated requirement no. R4a of the RFP. Therefore, the Tribunal will not conduct an inquiry into this complaint and considers the matter closed
Yours sincerely,
Michel P. Granger
Secretary