TPG TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING LTD.
Determinations
TPG TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING LTD.
File No. PR-2007-033
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY FACSIMILE
September 12, 2007
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________:
| Subject: |
Solicitation No. EN869-04-0407/A |
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) (Panel: Pierre Gosselin, Presiding Member; James A. Ogilvy, Member; Meriel V. M. Bradford, Member) has reviewed the complaint submitted by TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. (TPG) on August 29, 2007, and has decided not to initiate an inquiry into the complaint.
TPG alleged the following: (1) the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) failed to fairly evaluate TPG’s proposal; (2) there was a reasonable apprehension of bias and/or an appearance of conflict of interest in the evaluation of bids and in the contract awarded; and (3) the procurement procedures were not fair, open, transparent and impartial.
In support of this complaint, TPG relied on information that it allegedly learned on August 15, 2007, from an unnamed “senior individual” within the Information Technology Services Branch of PWGSC. TPG alleged that the information that it received from this source “confirmed that a change in scores had occurred between September 28, 2006 and January 26, 200[7]”.
According to TPG, this complaint is further to a statement made by the Tribunal in its letter of August 23, 2007, in File No. PR-2007-025. That statement was as follows: “. . . [r]egarding the allegation that a second evaluation took place, if TPG is of the view that there exists sufficient grounds for a new complaint, it can file one with the Tribunal in accordance with the timeframes specified in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations”. In the current complaint, TPG indicates, at paragraph 33 of attachment 1, that it “did not believe that there was a ‘re[-]evaluation’ or ‘reconfirmation’ of bids to allocate or withdraw more points from bids” but, rather, “that the scores were altered or manipulated artificially to produce the result that TPG would lose with a margin of just over 5.2”.
The Tribunal dealt with grounds (1) and (3) of the current complaint when it considered the complaint in File No. PR-2006-050. The Tribunal has therefore exhausted its legal authority to deal with those grounds. A review of that decision is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal.
With respect to ground (2) of the current complaint, the Tribunal is of the view that the complaint fails to provide a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been conducted in accordance with the trade agreements. The Tribunal is of the view that accusations of the nature of those brought by TPG, if unsubstantiated, may unfairly impugn the integrity of the competitive procurement system and the officials responsible for its conduct. Such allegations are easily made but impossible to refute except by general denial. Doubts surrounding integrity can linger even when a complaint is rejected by the Tribunal or the Tribunal decides that it cannot, or will not, commence an inquiry. Therefore, such allegations ought not to be made unless sufficient supporting evidence can also be produced. TPG failed to do this. The Tribunal gives no weight to anonymous and unverifiable sources of alleged serious wrongdoings. The Tribunal remarks that sections 45 to 49 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act provide for the designation and protection of confidential information, but that TPG has not availed itself of those provisions as a means of substantiating its claims.
Accordingly, the Tribunal will not conduct an inquiry into the complaint and considers the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
Hélène Nadeau
Secretary