SPECTRAL SYSTEMS LTD.
Determinations
SPECTRAL SYSTEMS LTD.
File No. PR-2005-014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY FACSIMILE
August 26, 2005
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Re: |
Solicitation Number M9010-061087/A |
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) (Patricia M. Close, Presiding Member) has reviewed the complaint submitted on behalf of Spectral Systems Ltd. (Spectral) on August 18, 2005, and has decided not to initiate an inquiry into this complaint.
Spectral alleged that the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) did not score Spectral’s proposal correctly and therefore, that it should be awarded the contract or that it be compensated for lost profits.
Subsection 7(1)(c) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations reads, in part, that the Tribunal shall, within five working days after the day on which the complaint is filed, determine whether “the information provided by the complainant … discloses a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been carried out in accordance with whichever one of Chapter Ten of NAFTA, Chapter Five of the Agreement on Internal Trade or the Agreement on Government Procurement …applies”.
According to the complaint, on August 8, 2005, PWGSC informed Spectral that it did not receive full marks for the portions of its proposal addressing sections 5 and 6 of the specification because it did not provide any additional information (referred to in paragraphs 5.2 and 6.2) to the information requested in sub-paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
Spectral argued that the requirements under paragraphs 5.2 and 6.2 were not listed as rated requirements under paragraph 7 of the specification and tables 1 and 2 in the Evaluation Guide. Paragraph 7 of the specification and tables 1 and 2 in the Evaluation Guide state that points would be awarded for sub-paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3 only. Spectral stated, therefore, that by not awarding it all of the 10 available points for each of sections 5 and 6, PWGSC erred in its evaluation of its proposal, by applying unspecified requirements.
The Tribunal believes that table 2.0 of the evaluation guide, which it notes was provided to all bidders, is quite clear when it states that bidders will be awarded 7 points for providing all the requested items for sub-paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 and that 10 points would be awarded if the bidder provided additional items. The Tribunal notes that the same wording also appears in relation to section 6. The Tribunal believes that this wording makes it permissible for PWGSC to award less than full marks for both sections 5 and 6, even if a bidder provided everything that was requested in paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
Therefore, in the Tribunal’s view, the information provided by Spectral 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 above, the Tribunal will not conduct an inquiry into this complaint and considers the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Susanne Grimes
Acting Secretary