SCRIPT SERVICES CORPORATION
Determinations
SCRIPT SERVICES CORPORATION
File No. PR-2007-014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY FACSIMILE
May 14, 2007
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Subject: |
Solicitation No. 89089-061100/A |
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) (Zdenek Kvarda, Presiding Member) has reviewed the complaint submitted on behalf of Script Services Corporation (Script) on May 7, 2007, and has decided not to initiate an inquiry into the complaint.
Script alleged that the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) did not evaluate its proposal in accordance with the duty of fairness owed to each respondent by the Government of Canada.
Under subsection 6(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (the Regulations), a complaint must 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) 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.”
The Tribunal is of the opinion that Script knew or reasonably should have known of the basis of its complaint on March 30, 2007. On that date, Script became aware that PWGSC had awarded a contract to Société Gamma Inc. It also learned the scoring of each section of its proposal and was provided with a brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of its proposal. According to the complaint, on April 5, 2007, counsel for Script sent a letter to PWGSC advising that it was representing Script, that it was reviewing Script’s proposal in response to the solicitation and that it was requesting a delay of the contract award until concerns could be addressed. In response to this letter, on April 12, 2007, PWGSC again advised Script that a contract had already been awarded. On April 23, 2007, Script sent a letter to PWGSC objecting to the points assigned to its proposal. On May 7, 2007, Script filed its complaint with the Tribunal.
Since Script knew of the basis of its complaint on March 30, 2007, it would have had until April 17, 2007, to make an objection to PWGSC or to file a complaint with the Tribunal. Script’s letter of April 5, 2007, was not included in the materials filed with this complaint, but, based on the description in the complaint, the Tribunal does not consider the letter of April 5, 2007, to be an objection. Rather, the Tribunal understands that Script made an objection to PWGSC on April 23, 2007, which is more than 10 working days after March 30, 2007. The complaint was filed with the Tribunal on May 7, 2007, which is also more than 10 working days after March 30, 2007.
Because the letter of April 5, 2007, was not included in the materials filed with this complaint, the Tribunal also examined the possibility that that letter could have constituted a timely objection, had it clearly expressed Script’s grounds of complaint. If that possibility could have been established, the Tribunal is of the opinion that PWGSC’s letter dated April 12, 2007, would have constituted a denial of relief. Under such circumstances, Script would have had 10 working days from that date, or until April 26, 2007, to file a complaint with the Tribunal. The complaint was filed with the Tribunal on May 7, 2007.
Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the objection was made beyond the time limit established by subsection 6(2) of the Regulations and that, therefore, the complaint cannot be considered to have been filed within the prescribed time limit.
Accordingly, the complaint is not accepted for inquiry, and the Tribunal considers the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Hélène Nadeau
Secretary