QUANTUM MARINE LTD.
Determinations
QUANTUM MARINE LTD.
File No. PR-2007-023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY E-MAIL AND MAIL
June 29, 2007
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Subject: |
Solicitation No. W8486-07JB09/A |
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) (Panel: Meriel V. M. Bradford, Presiding Member; Pierre Gosselin, Member; James A. Ogilvy, Member) has reviewed the complaint submitted by Quantum Marine Ltd. (Quantum) on June 22, 2007, and has decided not to initiate an inquiry into the complaint.
This complaint relates to a procurement by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for “Short Range and Long Range Beacons” for operational and training units of the Canadian Forces.
Quantum alleged the following:
(1) PWGSC improperly declared its proposal non-compliant. According to Quantum, the equipment it proposed met all of the technical requirements.
(2) There is a reasonable apprehension of bias and preferential treatment since the specifications for the beacons were biased in favour of the winning bidder’s product. Specifically, Quantum has raised issues regarding the requirements for the type of battery for use in the beacons.
According to subsection 6(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (the Regulations), a complaint shall be filed with the Tribunal “. . . no later that 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.”
With respect to the first allegation, the Tribunal notes that, on June 14, 2007, Quantum was advised that its bid was not accepted and that the proposal from Primex Project Management Ltd. was the only compliant proposal. Later that day, Quantum requested further details regarding the evaluation of its bid. On June 18, 2007, PWGSC advised Quantum that a debriefing could be held during the week of July 9, 2007. The Tribunal notes that Quantum does not yet know the reasons why its bid was declared non-compliant and, therefore, cannot know the basis for this ground of complaint. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that this ground of complaint is premature. This determination of the Tribunal does not preclude Quantum from filing a complaint in relation to this ground of complaint should Quantum not agree with the results of the evaluation of its bid, once it has been provided with that information by PWGSC. If Quantum wishes to file a new complaint in relation to this ground, it must do so within the time frame established by subsection 6(1) of the Regulations.
With respect to the second allegation, the Tribunal notes that it relates to the specifications set out in the Request for Proposal and that, on March 1, 2007, PWGSC issued solicitation amendment No. 003, which provided an answer to a bidder’s question regarding the type of battery required for the beacons. PWGSC stated that there would be no changes to the specifications or the evaluation criteria. The Tribunal is of the view that Quantum knew or reasonably should have known the basis of the complaint on March 1, 2007. To the extent that Quantum found inappropriate the requirement for AA batteries and considered PWGSC’s response objectionable, it could have raised the matter with PWGSC, through a formal objection, or filed a complaint with the Tribunal within the time frame prescribed in section 6 of the Regulations. Rather, Quantum filed a complaint with the Tribunal on June 22, 2007, which is more than 10 working days after March 1, 2007. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that this ground of complaint was filed beyond the time limit established by subsection 6(1) of the Regulations.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal will not conduct an inquiry into the complaint and considers the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Hélène Nadeau
Secretary