Medium Support Vehicle System Standard Military Pattern vehicles—Request for proposal 1

On this page

• Background and introduction
• Project requirement
• Attestation of assurance
• Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology
• Fairness monitor specific activities and findings
  • Fairness monitor activities and findings concerning industry consultation and development of the request for proposal
  • Fairness monitor activities and findings during the request for proposal posting period
• Reference documents

Background and introduction

Modis Canada Inc. (previously known as Ajilon Consulting) was engaged as the Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the competitive procurement process for the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) Standard Military Pattern (SMP) Vehicles project undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for Department of National Defence (DND) through Solicitation Number W8476-06MSMP/J. Modis Canada Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities.

We hereby submit the Final Report covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor, commencing with the review of drafts of a Request for Proposal (RFP), and continuing through to the RFP stage. It is noted that the bid solicitation was cancelled prior to the bid evaluation stage.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and relevant observations from the activities undertaken.

Project requirement

The Government of Canada has identified a requirement for Standard Military Pattern (SMP) Vehicles as part of the Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) project. The SMP Vehicles will be delivered in five (5) different variants and will include long term In Service Support for the SMP vehicles.

The competitive procurement process for the SMP Vehicles will be implemented through a Request for Proposal posted on MERX^{Footnote 1}.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) Vehicles procurement process:

It is our professional opinion that the competitive procurement process for the Standard Military Pattern (SMP) Vehicles that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Note: For all references in this report concerning fairness related comments being provided to project officials, it is confirmed that, as necessary, project officials provided clarification to the Fairness Monitor or took appropriate action to address the comments, and as a result no fairness deficiencies were recorded.

Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology

The overall objective was as follows: provide PWGSC with independent observation of project procurement activities; provide fairness related comments to project officials as early as possible so that appropriate action could be taken to resolve the concerns before fairness was impacted; bring any potential fairness concerns to the attention of the Operational Integrity Sector if there is no timely resolution with project officials; and attest as to the fairness of the procurement process, including its execution.

To accomplish the objective we undertook the following activities:

• became familiar with the project governance structure
• reviewed information including questions and answers posted on the project website prior to posting of the RFP
• reviewed draft and final versions of the Request for Proposal (RFP)
• reviewed all amendments and addenda to the RFP including questions submitted by proponents and answers
• reviewed the procedures to be used for the evaluation of responses and the guidance provided to the evaluation team
• observed the evaluation of responses to the RFP to ensure that the specified evaluation and selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process. (This activity was not undertaken because the RFP was cancelled prior to the commencement of the bid evaluation process)
• observed the debriefing of unsuccessful bidders. (This activity was not undertaken because the RFP was cancelled prior to the commencement of the bid evaluation process)

Fairness monitor specific activities and findings

Fairness monitor activities and findings concerning industry consultation and development of the request for proposal

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant project documents. During the period February 21, 2007 to December 15, 2011 we observed and/ or reviewed the industry consultation and qualification process and reviewed draft versions of the RFP and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the request for proposal posting period

We reviewed the version of the RFP that was published on MERX^{Footnote 1} on December 16, 2011 (Document 1). No fairness deficiencies were identified. During the period December 21, 2011 to July 12, 2012 we reviewed Questions and Answers (Qs & As) concerning the RFP, and draft and final Amendments 1 to 26 (Documents 2 to 27) and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.

On July 12, 2012 bidders were notified that the solicitation was cancelled.

Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in the attached report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the SMP project office.

Table summary

The following table includes a list of documents referred to in the report such as the Request for Proposal (RFP), amendments, clarification letters, debriefing letters, etc. Each row is numbered, followed by the document title, then a document identifier such as a date or document number.

No.	Document	Additional information
1	Request for Proposal (RFP)	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on December 16, 2011
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on December 21, 2011
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on December 12, 2011
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on December 19, 2011
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on January 23, 2012
6	Amendment 5 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on January 31, 2012
7	Amendment 6 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on February 10, 2012
8	Amendment 7 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on February 29, 2012
9	Amendment 8 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on February 29, 2012
10	Amendment 9 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on March 12, 2012
11	Amendment 10 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on March 14, 2012
12	Amendment 11 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on March 20, 2012
13	Amendment 12 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on March 27, 2012
14	Amendment 13 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on April 5, 2012
15	Amendment 14 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on April 13, 2012
16	Amendment 15 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on May 2, 2012
17	Amendment 16 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on May 2, 2012
18	Amendment 17 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on May 10, 2012
19	Amendment 18 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on May 22, 2012
20	Amendment 19 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on May 31, 2012
21	Amendment 20 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on June 1, 2012
22	Amendment 21 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on June 8, 2012
23	Amendment 22 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on June 15, 2012
24	Amendment 23 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on June 22, 2012
25	Amendment 24 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on June 28, 2012
26	Amendment 25 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on July 4, 2012
27	Amendment 26 to RFP	Published on MERXFootnote 1 on July 12, 2012