Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) Procurement

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 the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) Procurement undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) through Solicitation Number ET025-113426/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 a Request for Proposal (RFP) that had been posted on MERX, through the evaluation of the Phase 1 proposals, the evaluation of the Phase 2 proposals, and the selection of the recommended proponent.

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 the services of an architectural firm, acting as the Prime Consultant, to undertake the design of, and provide construction administration and site services needed for, the new Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.

The prime consultant, in conjunction with its key sub-consultants, will provide full services expertise in architecture, civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering, along with specialist sub-consultants, such as cost consultants, landscape architect, kitchen consultant, energy analysts, wind modeling and engineering, environmental specialists, urban planners, economic planning consultant, sociologists, etc., as required to deliver the project.

Attestation of Assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the services of an architectural firm, acting as the Prime Consultant, to undertake the design of, and provide construction administration and site services needed for, the new Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut:

It is our professional opinion that the competitive process we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

___________________
Bruce Maynard P. Eng.
FM Specialist

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 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 the Request for Proposal (RFP);
• reviewed all amendments and addenda to the RFP including questions submitted by proponents and answers provided;
• reviewed the procedures to be used for the evaluation of responses and the guidance provided to the evaluation team and the evaluation Jury;
• 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

Fairness Monitor Activities and Findings during the Phase 1 RFP Stage

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant project documents. During the period September 22, 2011 to November 1, 2011, we reviewed the RFP that had been published earlier on MERX (Document 1), Questions and Answers (Qs & As) concerning the RFP and draft and final Amendments 1 to 6 (Documents 2 to 7) and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority.

All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs & As process and the amendments to the RFP.

Fairness Monitor Activities and Findings concerning the Phase 1 Evaluation Stage

During the period November 2, 2011 to December 2, 2011, we reviewed and provided fairness related comments on the evaluation of the mandatory requirements and on the evaluation guidelines and proposed evaluation approach. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.

On December 6, 2011 we observed the consensus evaluation of proposals received and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.

On December 14, 2011 we reviewed the results of the evaluation and the application of the selection method that identified the qualified bidders for Phase 2. We were advised that all calculations had been double checked. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness Monitor Activities and Findings during the Phase 2 RFP Stage

Amendment 7 to the RFP (Document 8) initiating Phase 2 was sent to the qualified proponents on December 15, 2011.

During the period December 15, 2011 to February 15, 2012, we reviewed draft and final Amendments 7 to 15 to the RFP (Documents 8 to 16), and Qs & As concerning the RFP, and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs & As process and the amendments to the RFP.

On January 10, 2012 we observed a Phase 2 Briefing Meeting provided to qualified proponents. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Phase 2 of the RFP closed on February 15, 2012.

Fairness Monitor Activities and Findings during the Phase 2 Evaluation Stage

On March 7, 2012 we observed the consensus evaluation of the Technical Requirements of Phase 2 of the RFP. During the period March 8, 2012 to March 10, 2012, we observed the consensus evaluation by the Jury of the architectural aspects of the designs proposed in Phase 2. No fairness deficiencies were identified during either evaluation process.

On March 21, 2012 we reviewed the results of the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended proponent. We were advised that the calculations and results had been double checked. 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 CHARS 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 MERX on September 15, 2011
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 12, 2011
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 21, 2011
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 26, 2011
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 26, 2011
6	Amendment 5 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 28, 2011
7	Amendment 6 to RFP	Published on MERX on October 28, 2011
8	Amendment 7 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on December 15, 2011
9	Amendment 8 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on January 4, 2012
10	Amendment 9 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on January 16, 2012
11	Amendment 10 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on January 27, 2012
12	Amendment 11 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on February 1, 2012
13	Amendment 12 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on February 6, 2012
14	Amendment 13 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on February 7, 2012
15	Amendment 14 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on February 8, 2012
16	Amendment 15 to RFP	Issued to Qualified Proponents on February 10, 2012

Addendum to the Final Report
March 18, 2014

Addendum to Fairness Monitor Contractor’s Final Report dated March 30, 2012 concerning the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Prime Consultant Procurement

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Contractor’s Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase.

We were advised by project officials on July 6, 2012 that the contract for the Prime Consultant had been awarded to the recommended bidder. On the same day we reviewed the proposed debriefing letters to the unsuccessful bidders which provided the overall results of the evaluation. We monitored debriefings of the unsuccessful bidders by teleconference on: October 12, 17, and 19, 2012; February 15, and 22, 2013; March 18, 2013; and March 14, 2014. The debriefings were carried out over an unusually long period of time due to the lack of availability of the chairman of the jury which evaluated the architectural merits of the proposed designs, who was not a public servant. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness Monitor Attestation of Assurance

It is the opinion of the Fairness Monitor that the post evaluation activities, including the debriefing letters and subsequent detailed individual debriefings, were carried out in a fair manner. In this context, fairness is defined as decisions made objectively, free from personal favouritism and political influence, and encompasses the elements of openness, competitiveness, transparency and compliance.

___________________
Bruce Maynard P. Eng.
FM Specialist