Vehicle Barriers for Parliament Hill Project

Table of Contents

1. Background and Introduction
2. Project Requirement
3. Attestation of Assurance
4. Objectives of the Fairness Monitor Assignment and Methodology
5. Fairness Monitor Specific Activities and Findings
6. Reference Documents

Background and Introduction

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture was engaged as the Fairness Monitoring (FM) to observe the competitive procurement process for Engineering Services for the Vehicle Barriers Project for the Parliament Hill Complex undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) through Solicitation Number EP757-121005/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 contractor-provided engineering services to assist with the design and implementation of vehicle barriers for the Parliament Hill Complex. The intent of the project is to design and implement vehicle control barriers and bollards at all Parliament Hill vehicle and pedestrian entry points while respecting the heritage characteristics of the Hill and maintaining a public atmosphere.

The Contractor is required to act as the prime consultant in the design and implementation of the Vehicle Barriers project on Parliament Hill. The prime consultant will oversee a multi-disciplinary team providing experienced professional personnel to provide services in electrical engineering, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, civil/municipal engineering, conservation engineering, landscape architecture, cost control, traffic engineering, architecture, physical security design/analysis, commissioning specialist, lighting designer and industrial designer for the design.

Attestation of Assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive process to acquire contractor-provided Engineering Services for the Vehicle Barriers 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.

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 September 21, 2011 we reviewed the Procurement Plan for the project and during the period September 13, 2011 to October 6, 2011, we reviewed draft versions of the RFP. Fairness related comments were provided to project officials and appropriate action was taken.

The RFP was posted on MERX on October 14, 2011.

FM Activities and Findings during the Posting Period of the RFP

On October 15, 2011, we reviewed the RFP as posted on MERX (Document 1). No fairness related deficiencies were identified.

During the period October 15, 2011 to November 17, 2011, we reviewed Amendments 1 to 3 to the RFP (Documents 2 to 4). No fairness related deficiencies were identified.

The RFP closed on November 28, 2011.

FM Activities and Findings involving the Evaluation of Reponses

On September 19, 2011 we reviewed a document entitled "A Guide to the Evaluation Board" dated September 1, 2009 (Document 5). On October 4, 2011, we met with senior contracting officials to obtain an understanding of the rated requirement evaluation scoring process in use by the contracting directorate. The process is similar to the standard evaluation practice of requiring full discussion by all evaluation board members but differs in that it does not require a consensus to be reached. It was adopted by the contracting directorate after discussions with the association representing engineering consulting companies. In view of its similarities to standard evaluation practices and the support it has with the association, agreement was reached for its use on this project.

On December 19, 2011 we observed the evaluation of mandatory and rated requirements by the Evaluation Board. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. As indicated in the previous paragraph, a consensus process to awarding scores was not used. The discussion among Board members was full and rigorous. Scoring was consistent among proposals and based on the RFP and the individual proposals. While not based on a consensus, the results clearly represented the collective views of the Board. The process meets fairness standards and no fairness deficiencies were indentified with the evaluation.

Also, on December 19, 2011, we observed the opening and evaluation of Financial Proposals, and the roll-up of total scores. Total scores were consistent with the evaluation results observed and the Contracting Authority confirmed that the roll up would be double checked by an independent colleague. The independent double check was later confirmed. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

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 October 14, 2011
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Posted on MERX October 14, 2011
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Posted on MERX October 31, 2011
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Posted on MERX November 17, 2011
5	Document entitled "A Guide to the Evaluation Board"	Dated September, 1, 2009

Addendum to the Final Report
March 8, 2012

Addendum to Fairness Monitor Final Report dated January 3, 2012 for the Engineering Services Contract for the Vehicle Barriers for Parliament Hill Project

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase and includes notification of results and debriefings to bidders.

On December 21, 2011 we reviewed individual letters forwarded to the unsuccessful bidders informing them of the results of the evaluation. On March 1, 2012 we observed a debriefing provided to the successful bidder and on March 6, 2012 we observed debriefings provided to two unsuccessful bidders. Bidders were provided with their individual scores and an explanation and ranking for each rated requirement. The third unsuccessful bidder did not request a debriefing. No fairness deficiencies were identified and we are satisfied that PWGSC met its obligation to provide debriefings.

Fairness Monitor Attestation of Assurance

It is our professional opinion that the contract award and debriefing stage of the competitive procurement process for the Engineering Services Contract for the Vehicle Barriers for Parliament Hill Project was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.