Vehicle Barriers for Parliament Hill Construction Management Services

Table of Contents

• Background and Introduction
• Project Requirement
• Attestation of Assurance
• Objectives of the Fairness Monitor Assignment and Methodology
• Fairness Monitor Specific Activities and Findings
• Reference Documents

Background and Introduction

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture was engaged as the Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the competitive procurement process for Construction Management Services (CMS) for the Vehicle Barriers Project for the Parliament Hill Complex undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) through Solicitation Number EP758-122306/A. Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We hereby submit the Final Report covering our activities, commencing with the review of an existing draft Request for Proposal (RFP), continuing through the RFP phase, evaluation phase and selection of a recommended proposal.

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

Project Requirement

The Government of Canada has identified a requirement for construction management services to assist with the implementation of vehicle barriers including fixed and retractable bollards at the gates to the Parliament Hill Complex. The Complex has the following gates through the historic Wellington Wall: South Drive gate, Bank Street gate, West gate, East gate, Queen gate, Elgin gate and Rideau gate.

The Contractor is required to provide the following services:

• Advisory and Support;
• Project Administration;
• Cost Management;
• Time Management;
• Risk Management;
• Scope Management;
• Quality Management;
• Health and Safety;
• Commissioning;
• Construction Services;
• Full Time Site Staff
• Act as Constructor;
• Work Packaging and Management of Work Implementation;
• Tendering;
• Pre-purchase of Materials; and
• On-Site Coordination and Logistics.

Attestation of Assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive process to acquire Construction Engineering Services for the Vehicle Barriers Project for Parliament Hill Project:

It is our professional opinion that the competitive process 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 to:

• provide PWGSC with independent observation of all activities involving the project that could impact fairness;

• 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;

• if there is no timely resolution with project officials, to bring any potential fairness concerns to the attention of the Director General Operations Integrity Sector; and

• to attest 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 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; and

• observed the debriefing of unsuccessful bidders. (This activity will be reported on in an addendum to this report after any debriefings.)

Fairness Monitor Specific Activities and Findings

FM Activities and Findings prior to Posting of the RFP

On December 4, 2011 we reviewed a draft version of the RFP. Fairness related comments were provided to project officials and appropriate action was taken.

The RFP was posted on MERX on December 22, 2011.

FM Activities and Findings during the Posting Period of the RFP

On December 23, 2011 we reviewed the RFP as posted on MERX (Document 1). No fairness related deficiencies were identified.

During the period December 23, 2011 to January 27, 2012, we reviewed Amendments 1 to 4 to the RFP (Documents 2 to 5). Amendment 4 included Addenda 1 and 2. No fairness related deficiencies were identified.

The RFP closed on February 8, 2012.

FM Activities and Findings involving the Evaluation of Reponses

On February 10, 2012 we reviewed a document entitled "A Guide to the Evaluation Board – Evaluation Board Procedures" (Document 6). No fairness deficiencies were identified. On the same day, we observed the Evaluation Board Orientation Meeting at which Board Members were briefed on evaluation procedures and their responsibilities and were provided copies of the proposals received. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On February 20, 2012 we observed the consensus evaluations by the Evaluation Board of the mandatory and rated responses received to the RFP. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On the same day after the consensus evaluations were completed, we observed the tabulation of total technical scores, the opening of financial proposals, and an initial tabulation of results to identify the successful bidder. The tabulation of scores and results was consistent with the basis of selection specified in the RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On February 27, 2012 we were advised by the Contracting Authority that the tabulation of results had been double checked and confirmed.

Reference Documents

The following documents are referenced by number in the attached report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the Vehicle Barriers 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.

Reference Documents

No.	Document	Additional information
1	Request for Proposal	Posted on MERX December 22, 2011
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Posted on MERX December 23, 2011
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Posted on MERX January 11, 2012
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Posted on MERX January 20, 2012
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Posted on MERX January 27, 2012
6	Document "Guide to the Evaluation Board – Evaluation Board Procedures"	Dated September 1, 2009

Addendum to the Final Report
September 16, 2013

Addendum to Fairness Monitor Contractor's Final Report dated February 29, 2012 concerning Construction Management Services for Vehicle Barriers for Parliament Hill Project

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Contractor's Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation and selection phase and includes debriefings of bidders.

On February 24, 2012 we were advised that the Contract had been awarded and on the same day we reviewed the regret letters forwarded to the unsuccessful bidders. Each letter provided a written debriefing of consensus evaluation scores achieved by the respective bidder. On September 4, 2013 we observed the verbal briefing of one unsuccessful bidder that had requested a verbal debrief.

Fairness Monitor Attestation of Assurance

It is the opinion of the Fairness Monitor that the post evaluation activities, including the written and face to face debriefings, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.