File PR-2022-014 Unincorporated joint venture between BEVA Global Management Inc., Enterprise Information Systems, Inc., Franco-Expert Inc. and ABCE Language School Inc.

Decision made Wednesday, June 8, 2022 Decision and reasons issued Tuesday, June 21, 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed pursuant to subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

BY

UNINCORPORATED JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN BEVA GLOBAL MANAGEMENT INC., ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., FRANCO-EXPERT INC. AND ABCE LANGUAGE SCHOOL INC.

AGAINST

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DECISION

Pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

[1] Subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act [1] (CITT Act) provides that, subject to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations [2] (Regulations), a potential supplier may file a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal concerning any aspect of the procurement process that relates to a designated contract and request the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. Subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act provides that, subject to the Regulations, after the Tribunal determines that a complaint complies with subsection 30.11(2) of the CITT Act, it shall decide whether to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT

[1] This complaint was filed by an unincorporated joint venture between BEVA Global Management Inc., Enterprise Information Systems, Inc., Franco-Expert Inc. and ABCE Language School Inc. [3] (referred collectively hereinafter as the “joint venture”), with respect to a request for proposal (RFP) (solicitation 5000057231) issued by the Department of the Environment [4] (ECCC) for a virtual individual language training program, which includes a learning management system as well as professional teaching services, among other things.

[2] This complaint revolves around the interpretation of a mandatory technical criterion as well as ECCC’s alleged failure, during the conduct of the evaluation, to follow access instructions that were provided by the joint venture in its proposal.

[3] The joint venture alleges that its proposal was disqualified as a result of an unreasonable application of a mandatory technical criterion contained in the solicitation documents, as well as the failure of ECCC to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the assessment of its proposal. [5]

[4] More specifically, the joint venture relies on various provisions of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement [6] (CFTA) and the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement [7] (WTO-AGP) and raises the following three distinct grounds of complaint, albeit presented in a way that they appear to be inextricably intertwined:

(i) As a first and main ground of complaint, the joint venture argues that ECCC unfairly evaluated and disqualified its proposal; [8]

(ii) As a second ground of complaint, the joint venture raises allegations of discriminatory behaviour and bias in favour of the successful bidder; [9]

(iii) As a third ground of complaint, the joint venture argues that the application of the impugned mandatory technical criterion is discriminatory and had the effect of creating an unnecessary obstacle to trade. [10]

[5] As a remedy, the joint venture requests that its bid be re-evaluated, that the contract be terminated and that it be awarded the contract. Alternatively, the joint venture seeks compensation for lost profits, as well as reimbursement of its bid preparation costs and complaint costs. [11]

[6] For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

BACKGROUND

Procurement process

[7] On November 24, 2021, ECCC issued the RFP in question on Buyandsell.gc.ca. [12] Several amendments were issued to respond to potential bidders’ questions, modify requirements in the RFP and extend the solicitation closing date. The solicitation closed on February 8, 2022, at 2 p.m. EST.

[8] The joint venture submitted its proposal on or before the closing date.

[9] The joint venture’s proposal outlined instructions on how to access an online platform through a link to a website and included a step whereby the evaluation team would have to contact a specific individual in order to be granted full access to various levels and modules or, put differently, various learning contents. [13]

[10] On May 5, 2022, ECCC informed the joint venture that a contract had been awarded to another bidder and that its proposal had been found to be non-responsive because it did not meet mandatory technical criterion 1 (MTC 1). As a result, ECCC advised the joint venture that its proposal had been disqualified. [14]

[11] On that same day, the joint venture made an objection to ECCC, by way of email, expressing its concerns and requesting that its proposal be evaluated, as its records indicated that an evaluator did, in fact, access its website on multiple occasions. [15]

[12] Having received no response, the joint venture followed up several times with ECCC. [16]

[13] On May 17, 2022, ECCC responded to the joint venture’s objection and maintained its decision by sharing the evaluation team’s response. [17]

[14] On May 27, 2022, a debriefing session was held with ECCC and the evaluation team for the solicitation at the request of the joint venture. [18]

[15] On June 1, 2022, the joint venture filed a complaint with the Tribunal. [19]

Procedural remarks

[16] The joint venture filed several documents in support of its complaint that were designated as “Confidential”, including various portions of paragraphs in its detailed statement of facts and arguments that consisted of key allegations and facts underpinning the complaint.

[17] In the Tribunal’s view, many of these paragraphs did not warrant a confidential designation. [20] According to the Tribunal’s Confidentiality Guidelines, [21] in procurement matters, correspondence between a complainant and the government institution or grounds of complaints are typically considered to be public, unless the information discloses business proprietary information. The explanations [22] provided by counsel for the joint venture with respect to the confidential designation of information of this nature did not convince the Tribunal. [23]

[18] Moreover, while the joint venture provided a redacted or edited public version of its detailed statement of facts and arguments, this version was not in sufficient detail to convey a reasonable understanding of the substance of some of the information or statements that it designated as confidential. The Tribunal also is not persuaded by the joint venture’s explanations for not providing such a non-confidential summary. Any statement that an adequate non-confidential summary cannot be made or would disclose facts that a party has a reason for wishing to keep confidential must be accompanied by proper justification.

[19] The Tribunal would like to caution parties from making unwarranted confidential designations with respect to key allegations and facts underpinning a complaint, as it can undermine the Tribunal’s ability to issue reasons for its decisions that publicly disclose all the relevant information upon which its decisions are based. Complete and well-documented public reasons are essential to the transparency of the Tribunal’s decision-making process.

[20] Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal will discuss the relevant facts or arguments that were designated as confidential in a general way, with references to protected submissions and evidence, as the case may be.

ANALYSIS

[21] Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Regulations, after receiving a complaint that complies with subsection 30.11(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal must determine whether the following four conditions are met before it can conduct an inquiry:

(i) the complaint has been filed within the time limits prescribed by section 6 of the Regulations; [24]

(ii) the complainant is a potential supplier; [25]

(iii) the complaint is in respect of a designated contract; [26] and

(iv) the information provided discloses a reasonable indication that the procurement has not been conducted in accordance with the relevant trade agreements. [27]

[22] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the information provided with the complaint does not disclose a reasonable indication of a breach of the applicable trade agreements, including the provisions of the CFTA and the WTO-AGP cited by the joint venture. As the grounds of complaint do not meet this condition of inquiry, the Tribunal will not consider whether the other conditions of inquiry are met.

The grounds of complaint and information examined by the Tribunal do not disclose a reasonable indication of a breach

[23] Pursuant to paragraph 7(1)(c) of the Regulations, the Tribunal must determine whether the information provided by the complainant, and any other information examined by the Tribunal, discloses a reasonable indication that the procurement was not conducted in accordance with any of the applicable trade agreements.

[24] While paragraph 7(1)(c) of the Regulations does not impose a high threshold, a party challenging a procurement must provide some evidence in support of its claim. [28] Mere allegations made by a complainant that are unsupported by evidence are insufficient to establish a reasonable indication that the procurement process was conducted in breach of the trade agreements. [29]

[25] The Tribunal now turns to consider whether each of the three grounds of complaint raised by the joint venture discloses a reasonable indication of a breach of the applicable trade agreements.

The first ground of complaint

[26] The joint venture argues, as a first and main ground of complaint, that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, unfair, not diligent and inconsistent with the provisions set out under the CFTA and the WTO-AGP. [30]

[27] In support of its complaint, the joint venture advances various assertions and arguments, the whole of which can be grouped as follows:

· ECCC’s reasoning for disqualifying its proposal is arbitrary and inconsistent with what the evaluators were able to review, as the website was functional and the evaluator was able to log onto the platform on multiple occasions; [31]

· ECCC failed to follow the instructions provided in the proposal and contact the designated individual for “full access to various levels and modules”; [32]

· The RFP did not prescribe how access to online material should be provided to ECCC. Further, nothing in the solicitation documents precluded the evaluator from contacting the joint venture to receive full access [33] or to benefit from a complete display of its proposed online contents (i.e. to view all the contents for the entire website); [34]

· ECCC failed to properly consider the material that was submitted as part of the proposal; ^[35]

· The joint venture submitted its proposal in accordance with the existing requirements under the RFP; [36]

· The joint venture’s proposal was not treated in a manner with “‘procedures that guarantee fairness and impartiality of the procurement process.’” [37]

[28] The relevant provision of MTC 1 reads as follows: [38]

MTC 1: Bidder’s Online Training Program

The Bidder must include access to the online training program for the evaluation team to be able to verify the elements of sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work.

[29] As for sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work of the RFP, referred to in MTC 1, they are reproduced, as amended, [39] in the annex to these reasons. As discussed below, of particular relevance is the fact that the elements of sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work included references to the substantive features of the proposed online training program, that is, to the training materials or learning contents per se. As such, MTC 1 required that bidders include in their proposals access to an online training program or curriculum encompassing resources, such as learning modules, exercises and activities, not merely access to an online platform or to a learning management system. [40]

[30] The trade agreements provide that, to be considered for contract award, a bid must conform to the essential requirements set out in the tender documentation. For example, both the CFTA and the WTO-AGP indicate that, to be considered for award, a bid must, at the time of opening, comply with the essential requirements set out in the tender documentation. [41] A procuring entity is also required to base its evaluation on the conditions specified in advance in its tender notices or tender documentation. [42]

[31] When considering whether bids are evaluated in keeping with these requirements, the Tribunal applies the standard of reasonableness and will generally accord a large measure of deference to evaluators in their evaluation of proposals. In this regard, the Tribunal has repeatedly stated that it will not interfere with an evaluation unless it is unreasonable and will not substitute its judgment for that of the evaluators unless the evaluators have not applied themselves in evaluating a bidder’s proposal, have ignored vital information provided in a bid, have wrongly interpreted the scope of a requirement, have based their evaluation on undisclosed criteria or have not conducted the evaluation in a procedurally fair way. [43]

[32] It is also settled law that procuring entities must evaluate a bid’s conformance with mandatory requirements thoroughly and strictly. [44] The Tribunal has also been clear that bidders bear the onus of demonstrating that their bids meet the mandatory criteria established in a solicitation. In particular, the requirement for a bid to demonstrate compliance with all mandatory criteria cannot be abridged or left to inference. Similarly, the Tribunal has stated that it is incumbent upon the bidder to exercise due diligence in the preparation of its proposal so as to ensure that it is unambiguous and properly understood by the evaluators. [45] Taken together, these precedents establish that, unless it is clearly stated in the solicitation documents that bidders would be allowed to provide additional information after bid closing to demonstrate compliance with a given mandatory criterion, [46] bidders must demonstrate such compliance in their proposals.

[33] Further, it is well established that a procurement authority can define its own solicitation requirements. The procuring authority must then correctly interpret the scope of the requirements, as set out in its own solicitation documentation. Evaluators are not allowed to apply requirements that are not explicit in, or do not arise by necessary implication from, a proper contextual reading of the solicitation documentation. [47]

[34] In light of these principles, and having considered the evidence placed in the record, the Tribunal finds that there is no reasonable indication that the evaluation of the joint venture’s proposal was not conducted in accordance with the conditions specified in the RFP and the applicable trade agreements.

[35] First, the Tribunal finds that ECCC’s interpretation and application of MTC 1 were reasonable and, indeed, correct. The terms of the RFP are clear: in order to comply with MTC 1, bidders were required to grant, prior to the bid closing date, sufficient access, if not complete access (or in the words used by the joint venture in its complaint, full access), to the contents of their proposed training program to allow the evaluation team to verify whether the contents satisfied the elements listed under section 5.0 or 5.1 of the Statement of Work.

[36] A contextual reading of the terms of MTC 1, read in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Statement of Work referred therein, supports the Tribunal’s interpretative finding. Indeed, MTC 1 provides that bidders “must include access to the online training program for the evaluation team to be able to verify the elements of sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work” [emphasis added]. Put differently, access to the elements listed under sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work, which include various learning contents, [48] had to be granted to the evaluation team prior to the bid closing date. Otherwise, such as in the matter at hand, the evaluation team would not have been able to verify whether the contents of the proposed learning training program satisfied the elements of sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work.

[37] The joint venture’s complaint is replete with admissions that only partial access to the proposed training program was granted to the evaluation team as opposed to complete or full access to the required learning contents, the latter being contingent on the evaluation team contacting a designated person. [49] The joint venture acknowledges that, had full access been requested by the evaluation team as per instructions to ECCC in its bid, it would have been able to provide access to various levels and modules. [50] This statement confirms that the joint venture understood that MTC 1 required it to include access to the substantive levels and modules (that is, to the learning contents) of its proposed training program. The Tribunal notes that the joint venture does not deny that access to all the required information and materials was not granted in the bid itself or accessible by simply following the link to its website provided in its bid. The confidential record also reveals that the joint venture did not in fact grant proper access to the contents of its training program, as required by MTC 1, but rather it merely granted partial access to an online platform or system. [51]

[38] As a result, the Tribunal finds that ECCC’s determination that the joint venture did not comply with MTC 1 is supported by a tenable explanation which arises from a proper contextual reading of this requirement and is therefore reasonable. Based on the clear terms of the mandatory technical criterion, ECCC cannot be faulted for having interpreted and applied it in the way that it did. The Tribunal sees no reasonable basis to second-guess ECCC’s decision in that regard, [52] as it was borne out by the evidence. The information provided in the complaint indicates that the joint venture chose to withhold access to the requisite substantive contents of its learning training program, including the various levels and modules, and preferred to direct ECCC to contact a designated person to obtain full access.

[39] In this regard, the Tribunal finds nothing in the language of MTC 1 or, more generally, in any of the terms of the RFP, including the instructions provided to bidders, to support the joint venture’s interpretation. In fact, Section I: Technical Bid of Part 3 of the RFP clearly indicated that bidders should demonstrate their understanding of the requirements contained in the bid solicitation and explain how they will meet these requirements in their technical bid. [53] This provision of the RFP provides further support for the conclusion that it was by including proper access to the required learning contents in their technical bids, and not by directing the evaluators to contact them to obtain full access and guidance in this respect during the evaluation, that bidders were to demonstrate their capabilities and describe their approach for carrying out the work.

[40] Although the Tribunal can be sympathetic to the circumstances at hand, it is not persuaded that it can intervene to remedy the shortcoming in the joint venture’s bid. In light of the foregoing, there was no basis for the joint venture’s assumption that it was permissible for bidders to instruct the evaluator to contact a designated person so as to ensure proper access to the elements that were subject to the evaluation. In the Tribunal’s view, the evidence suggests a difference of opinion between the joint venture and ECCC as to the significance of the information submitted in the proposal rather than ECCC’s failure to conduct the evaluation in accordance with the RFP. In particular, the joint venture is essentially asking the Tribunal to intervene to validate an assumption that it made regarding the manner to submit the technical information that was required by the RFP. However, the Tribunal finds that the RFP did not allow the joint venture to make such an assumption and, once the joint venture had made this assumption, it bore the onus to verify it with the contracting authority if it wanted to base its technical bid upon it.

[41] Indeed, the Tribunal has made it clear that a bidder bears the onus to seek clarification before submitting an offer. [54] As such, the Tribunal cannot also help but note that alternative options or precautions could and should have been taken by the joint venture to ensure compliance with MTC 1 prior to the bid closing date. [55]

[42] It bears repeating that bidders bear the onus of demonstrating that their bids clearly meet the mandatory criteria of a solicitation in their proposals. In other words, they bear the responsibility of “connecting the dots” and ensuring that any and all supporting documentation in their bids clearly demonstrates compliance. [56] This demonstration was not done by the joint venture, despite the fact that the solicitation documents clearly indicated that bidders had to grant access to the contents of their online training program for evaluators to be able to verify the elements of sections 5.0 and 5.1 of the Statement of Work.

[43] Moreover, the Tribunal is unable to accept the joint venture’s contention that nothing in the solicitation documents precluded bidders to provide instructions or direct the evaluation team to contact them, whether that was intended to grant proper access [57] or to display its learning training program. [58] This argument ignores the fact that the RFP did not expressly or even implicitly authorize bidders to proceed in this manner. In the absence of provisions suggesting that such instructions or directions could have been provided by bidders to the evaluators in this case, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence strongly supports the view that compliance with mandatory criteria must be demonstrated by bidders in their proposals as submitted at the time of opening, not by way of instructions to the evaluators on how to obtain a subsequent and complete demonstration of compliance. The Tribunal finds that ECCC’s evaluation was carried out in accordance with this principle.

[44] Fundamentally, bidders are not at liberty to direct or instruct the procuring entity to contact them for clarification or additional information about the contents of their bids during the evaluation phase of the procurement process. This would effectively, and impermissibly, allow bidders to supplement their proposals after bid closing and impose an obligation on government institutions to base the evaluation on information that goes beyond the contents of proposals.

[45] The Tribunal has generally refused to impose an obligation on government institutions to seek clarification or verification from bidders during the conduct of an evaluation. [59] In Southern California Safety Institute, Inc., [60] the Tribunal stated the following:

While, in limited circumstances, evaluators are permitted to seek the clarification or verification of information contained in proposals, they are generally required to make decisions on the basis of what is contained in the proposals before them.

[46] The Tribunal finds, in this regard, that ECCC was under no obligation whatsoever to contact the designated person to ensure that the joint venture’s proposal was compliant with MTC 1, despite being purportedly instructed to do so in the joint venture’s proposal. According to the 2003 (2020‑05‑28) Standard Instructions – Goods or Services – Competitive Requirements of the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions Manual (SACC Manual), which were incorporated by reference into the RFP under section 2.1, [61] procuring entities are under no obligation to proceed with any verification. [62]

[47] Additionally, the joint venture’s contention is further undermined by the terms of the impugned mandatory technical criterion itself when compared to the terms of other mandatory technical criteria provided in the RFP. Indeed, while MTC 3 expressly provides that “[u]pon request from the Contracting Authority the Bidder may be required to give a demonstration” [63] [emphasis added], MTC 1 does not contemplate such possibility. In the Tribunal’s view, this further supports the Tribunal’s interpretative finding that the terms of the solicitation were clear in that bidders were required to grant full access to the requisite substantive contents of their learning training program in their bid as opposed to partial access.

[48] Accordingly, the Tribunal does not see anything in the solicitation documents that could be interpreted so as to create a reasonable or legitimate expectation that bidders were entitled to display or demonstrate their online training program, including its various levels and modules, after submitting their bid. ECCC was under no obligation to seek additional information during the evaluation phase to verify compliance of the joint venture’s proposal and, in view of the wording of the mandatory technical criteria, the joint venture wrongly assumed that granting partial access to its online platform or system and asking the evaluation team to contact them for full access to its training program was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with MTC 1. While the Tribunal understands that this was the joint venture’s preferred method to demonstrate compliance, bidders cannot interpret the mandatory criteria in an RFP in such a manner as to turn them effectively into desirables. [64]

[49] Lastly, the Tribunal finds that allowing the joint venture to provide additional information after the bid closing date would have been unfair to the other bidders and possibly amounted to impermissible bid repair, as it would have resulted in the joint venture submitting additional information addressing the substance of MTC 1 (or providing access to key learning contents or lessons) for the very first time. To that effect, in Madsen Power Systems Inc., the Tribunal stated the following: [65]

It is worth noting that to verify is to make sure, that is, to authenticate, clarify, corroborate, seek demonstration or substantiate. As a result, verification assumes the prior existence of submitted information addressing a mandatory requirement and aims to ascertain the location or veracity of that information. When, in an attempt by a government institution at verification, a bidder submits information that addresses a mandatory requirement for the very first time, that information cannot, in the absence of an enabling provision in the solicitation documents, be added to or used to modify the bidder’s proposal. Such an addition or modification would constitute bid repair, which undermines the integrity of the competitive procurement process and is patently unfair to other bidders.

[Footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

[50] In the same vein, in Bell Canada, the Tribunal noted that the complainant introduced elements to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the solicitation for the first time in response to a request for clarification that had been made by the procuring entity. The Tribunal concluded that these elements were new and constituted a substantive revision to or modification of the complainant’s proposal. For these reasons, the Tribunal found that these elements could not be considered clarifications and, accordingly, could not be accepted as forming part of the proposal as submitted by the complainant at the time of bid closing. The Tribunal was thus not satisfied that the complainant had demonstrated compliance, in its proposal as submitted, with the mandatory requirement in dispute.

[51] Finally, the Tribunal stated, in Unisource Technology Inc., that “[e]valuators simply cannot depend upon extraneous knowledge or information when it is a mandatory requirement of the RFP that such information be submitted” [emphasis added]. [66] In the matter at hand, while bidders were required to include access to precisely defined substantive contents of their proposed training program with their bid in accordance with MTC 1, this was clearly not done by the joint venture.

[52] For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the first ground of complaint does not disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement process was not conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements. The terms of MTC 1 were clear and the information on the record indicates that the evaluation of the joint venture’s proposal was carried out in conformity with the criteria and methodology set out in the RFP.

The second ground of complaint

[53] As a second ground of complaint, the joint venture argues that the behaviour of the evaluation team discriminated against the joint venture, that it is suggestive of bias and that it is in favour of the incumbent bidder that was awarded the contract. [67]

[54] The Tribunal finds that the second ground of complaint and the information provided in the complaint do not disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement process was not conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.

[55] Simply put, the allegations made by the joint venture are not adequately supported by evidence and are largely speculative. There is simply insufficient evidence in the record supporting the allegation that the evaluation team’s actions were discriminatory against the joint venture, that they were suggestive of bias or that they favoured the incumbent and ultimately successful bidder. In the Tribunal’s view, the information before it does not disclose a reasonable indication that ECCC treated the joint venture unfairly or favoured another bidder in evaluating proposals or conducting the procurement.

[56] As previously noted, mere allegations made by a complainant that are unsupported by evidence are insufficient to establish a reasonable indication of a breach of the trade agreements.

The third ground of complaint

[57] As a third ground of complaint, the joint venture argues that the application of MTC 1 is discriminatory and had the effect of creating an unnecessary obstacle to trade. [68]

[58] In light of the Tribunal’s prior findings and conclusion on the reasonableness of ECCC’s evaluation, the Tribunal sees no basis upon which it can conclude that the application of MTC 1 was discriminatory and, as a result, created unnecessary obstacles to trade. ECCC reasonably interpreted the relevant mandatory technical criterion and evaluated the joint venture’s conformance with MTC 1 thoroughly and strictly as it should have.

[59] Further, and more importantly, the joint venture did not present any evidence that could suggest that the terms of the RFP, namely MTC 1, were structured in such a way that it would reasonably appear to have excluded potential bidders or favour the incumbent bidder. [69]

[60] For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the third ground of complaint and the information presented in the complaint do not disclose a reasonable indication that the procurement process was not conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.

DECISION

[61] Pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

 

 

ANNEX

5.0 Online Training Program – Mandatory Requirements

The Contractor must ensure that the online training program:

 

• Offers access to the online training program to respond to all the training requests with and without teacher-led sessions;

• Is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;

• Allows the employee to choose English or French as the interface language, according to his/her preference;

• Offers an automated, online language assessment (placement test) to determine the employee’s initial module;

• Offers a preliminary evaluation as authorized by the Project Authority and provides detailed report outlining the employee’s potential placement in the program, detailing the learning needs and expected duration of training;

• Is accessible from/compatible with a computer on ECCC premises, other government worksites or offsite, using a personal computer (Mac or Microsoft);

• Is accessible from/compatible with a computer with the following technical requirements:

1. Microsoft Windows 10

2. Microsoft Edge (based on Chromium)

3. EdgeHTML

• Includes maintenance (updates) and telephone and/or online technical support services throughout the employee’s training, in both official languages, Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Eastern Time), except federal statutory holidays; If an employee leaves a message, a technical support representative must contact the employee within 24 hours on working days;

• Offers an individually assigned protected password for each user. The passwords must have the following features:

1. generated automatically and/or chosen by the employee;

2. contain one or more security questions in case of loss;

3. offer the possibility of sending these individual codes by email in case of loss.

• Measures the knowledge acquired by the employee during training. The Contractor must indicate where to find, in the online program, the activities that make it possible to verify what has been learned for each of levels A, B and C, for the following four essential skills: reading comprehension, written expression and oral proficiency;

• Enables the employee to review or redo an exercise (go back) as often as needed in order to respect his/her learning style and speed;

• Uses professional language and a presentation appropriate for adults;

• Provides audio activities, activities with visual aids and interactive activities at all language levels (A, B and C);

• Includes a help and a search function or a guide to help the employee use the program properly.

 

5.1 Online Training Program – Optional Services

In order to allow access to all ECCC employees, in as much as possible, the program must enable access to employees with visual and hearing impairments.

In addition, the program could offer:

• A discussion forum (chat), blogs, Wikis or Web conferences between users to practice what they have learned;

• An error recognition and correction system;

• A glossary, a dictionary and a grammar reference;

• Phonetic exercises;

• A progress bar, motivational and encouragement emails or any other means to inform the employee of the good results he/she is achieving;

• A mandatory passing mark or a minimum result needed after each section/module before being able to access the next section/module.