FINE TOOL & DIE INC.
Determinations
Board File No: E91PRF66W-021-0013
IN THE MATTER OF:
A Complaint By Fine Tool & Die Inc. of 440 Brimley Road, # 10 & 11 Scarborough, Ontario
Board File No: E91PRF66W-021-0013
Complaint dismissed
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
The Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Part II, Sec. 15 S.C. 1988, Ch. 65.
22 May 1991
DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD
This complaint by Fine Tool & Die Inc. relates to a procurement for aircraft bolts. The procurement began with a Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP) published in the publication Government Business Opportunities (GBO) on 23 January 1991 with bids closing on 4 March 1991.
The complaint was received on 9 April 1991, and it alleges that:
(a) The Department of Supply and Services (DSS) advised that three pages were missing from the complainant's bid and that they were not being afforded an opportunity to supply the missing pages, which they were certain were sent with their bid; and
(b) DSS advised that blueprints, necessary to provide the proper guidelines to make the aircraft bolts, were unavailable. The complainant urges that they ought to have been provided for quotation and production purposes.
Since, at the time the complaint was filed, evaluation of bids had not been completed and no contract had been awarded, the Board, pursuant to Section 16 of the Free Trade Agreement Implementation (FTAI) Act, issued a Stop Award Order to DSS.
The administrative and regulatory requirements all having been satisfactorily met, the Board directed that the complaint be investigated.
However, after the investigation began, and after DSS had filed its Governmental Institution Report on 3 May 1991, the complainant sent the Board a letter (dated 16 May 1991) indicating that insofar as the first part of its complaint was concerned (the three missing pages which the complainant had alleged had been sent prior to bid closing), an accommodation had been reached with DSS allowing them to supply a "certified true copy of that transmission on April 15, 1991". The complainant then confirmed orally to the Board that they were withdrawing that part of their complaint.
With respect to the second part of their complaint (the absence of blueprints necessary to manufacture the bolts), the complainant confirmed that they wished that portion of their complaint to stand.
The Board has now considered that portion of the complaint and it has concluded that the complaint must be dismissed in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(a) of the PRB Regulations in that the complaint, on its face, does not disclose a valid basis.
This second portion of the complaint is set out in the original letter of complaint and elaborated on in the 16 May 1991 letter to the Board. Its basis is not that the lack of blueprints deprived them of a fair opportunity to bid. In fact, the letter of 16 May 1991 states: "I must emphasize that Fine Tool & Die Inc. had adequate information available for bidding." Its basis is, rather, that if awarded a contract, they will need the blueprints for production purposes, and these have been refused to them.
Therefore, the complaint is without basis in that the contract has not been awarded to anyone, let alone to the complainant, and what they are complaining of has not yet happened and may not happen at all. If it does, they can then file a complaint with this Board.
Further, the Stop Award Order is rescinded, effective immediately, so that the procurement action may continue.
DETERMINATION
The Board notes that one portion of this complaint has been withdrawn because the parties resolved that portion thereof by agreement between them, and the Board hereby dismisses the remaining portion of the complaint because, in the circumstances, it is without valid basis.
The Board rescinds its Stop Award Order issued 12 April 1991.
G.A. Berger
_________________________
G.A. Berger
Chairman
Procurement Review Board of Canada
Initial publication: August 28, 1997