DATA DEVICE CORPORATION
Determinations
DATA DEVICE CORPORATION
File No. PR-2005-033
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY FACSIMILE
October 26, 2005
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Re: |
Solicitation Number W8483-065839/A |
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) (Presiding Member: Zdenek Kvarda) has reviewed the complaint submitted on behalf of Data Device Corporation (DDC) on October 20, 2005, and has decided not to initiate an inquiry into the complaint.
Your complaint alleged that the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) improperly dismissed your proposal and improperly awarded a contract to a bidder who submitted a higher-priced proposal.
According to subsection 6(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (the Regulations), a complaint shall be filed with the Tribunal “not later than 10 working days after the day on which the basis of the complaint became known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier.” Subsection 6(2) of the Regulations states that a potential supplier who has made an objection to the relevant government institution, and is denied relief by that government institution, may file a complaint with the Tribunal “within 10 working days after the day on which the potential supplier has actual or constructive knowledge of the denial of relief, if the objection was made within 10 working days after the day on which its basis became known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier.”
According to the evidence filed by DDC, it was made aware, on September 15, 2005, that its proposal had been disqualified because its bid price was quoted in U.S., instead of Canadian, dollars. DDC also submitted that it became aware that the contract had been awarded to JHT Electronics (JHT) during the week of September 15 to 22, 2005. Also according to the complaint, DDC waited to see whether or not the request for proposal (RFP) would be re-issued, as it had been informed by the PWGSC contracting officer that this would happen if JHT was unable to provide the necessary goods. On October 19, 2005, DDC submitted that it checked MERX and found that the contract value was 3 times greater than DDC’s quote.
The Tribunal believes that DDC became aware of its grounds of complaint during the week of September 15 to 22, 2005, as they relate to the disqualification of its bid as well as the awarding of the contract to JHT. The Tribunal notes that in section 4.E of the complaint form, DDC states that PWGSC “dismissed my claim that the U.S. bid could be accepted” during the week of September 15 to 22, 2005. The Tribunal considers this dismissal as DDC’s denial of relief, as contemplated by subsection 6(2) of the Regulations. According to the complaint, this denial occurred, at the latest, on September 22, 2005. In order to be considered timely, DDC’s complaint would have had to have been filed with the Tribunal within 10 working days of that date, or by October 6, 2005. As the complaint was not filed until October 20, 2005, it is considered late and will not be investigated by the Tribunal.
In light of the above, the Tribunal will not conduct an inquiry into this complaint and it hereby considers the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Hélène Nadeau
Secretary