Real Property 2 (RP 2): Property Management, Project Delivery and Optional Services Procurement

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 the Real Property 2 (RP 2) Property Management, Project Delivery and Optional Services procurement for Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), undertaken by PWGSC through Solicitation Number EP008-122111/B (AFD Services – RP-2 / Campuses). 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 Information (RFI) through the review of a Request for Proposal (RFP), the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder.

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

Project Requirement

The Government of Canada identified a requirement for the services of a company to provide Real Property Property Management, Project Delivery and Optional Services for PWGSC buildings located on the Carling and Tunney Pasture Campuses. Bidders were required to submit one bid covering both campuses.

Attestation of Assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the procurement process for Real Property 2 (RP 2) to select a company to provide Property Management, Property Delivery and Optional Services to Public Works and Government Services Canada:

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 FM or took appropriate action to address the comments, and as a result no fairness deficiencies were recorded.

___________________
Peter Woods
Chef d'équipe

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 the Request for Information (RFI);

• reviewed the Request for Proposal (RFP);

• reviewed all amendments and addenda to the RFP including questions submitted by bidders and answers provided;

• 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 contractor 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 Specific Findings Concerning the RFI Phase

During the period March 23, 2012 to June 26, 2012, the Fairness Monitor reviewed draft and final versions of the RFI and provided fairness related comments. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials. The RFI was published on MERX on June 27, 2012 (Document 1).

The FM reviewed the RFI responses and draft versions of the RFP. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

FM Activities and Findings Concerning the RFP Phase

The RFP was published on MERX on September 21, 2012 (Document 2). During the period September 21, 2012 to November 20, 2012, the Fairness Monitor reviewed the RFP as published on MERX, Amendments 1 to 20 (Documents 3 to 22) to the RFP and Questions and Answers (Qs and As) concerning the RFP, and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.

FM Activities and Findings Concerning the Evaluation Phase

During the period November 7 to 20, 2012 we reviewed and provided fairness related comments on the consensus evaluation process and the Evaluation Plan and observed the training of the evaluators. Appropriate action was taken by project officials concerning our comments. During the period December 6, 2012 to February 7, 2013, we observed consensus evaluation meetings on the technical requirements and provided fairness related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On March 8, 2013 we reviewed the results of the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder as specified in the RFP. We were advised that the calculations and results had been double checked through independent peer reviews. 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 RP 2 Project Office.

Table Summary

The following table includes a list of documents referred to in the report such as the 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	RFI	Posted on MERX June 27, 2012
2	RFP Published on MERX	Posted on MERX September 21, 2012
3	RFP Amendment 1	Posted on MERX October 5, 2012
4	RFP Amendment 2	Posted on MERX October 5, 2012
5	RFP Amendment 3	Posted on MERX October 9, 2012
6	RFP Amendment 4	Posted on MERX October 12, 2012
7	RFP Amendment 5	Posted on MERX October 16, 2012
8	RFP Amendment 6	Posted on MERX October 17, 2012
9	RFP Amendment 7	Posted on MERX October 22, 2012
10	RFP Amendment 8	Posted on MERX October 24, 2012
11	RFP Amendment 9	Posted on MERX October 26, 2012
12	RFP Amendment 10	Posted on MERX October 29, 2012
13	RFP Amendment 11	Posted on MERX October 29, 2012
14	RFP Amendment 12	Posted on MERX October 30, 2012
15	RFP Amendment 13	Posted on MERX November 1, 2012
16	RFP Amendment 14	Posted on MERX November 5, 2012
17	RFP Amendment 15	Posted on MERX November 7, 2012
18	RFP Amendment 16	Posted on MERX November 8, 2012
19	RFP Amendment 17	Posted on MERX November 9, 2012
20	RFP Amendment 18	Posted on MERX November 14, 2012
21	RFP Amendment 19	Posted on MERX November 14, 2012
22	RFP Amendment 20	Posted on MERX November 15, 2012

Addendum to the Final Report
August 10, 2013

Addendum to Fairness Monitor Contractor's Final Report dated April 10, 2013 concerning the Real Property 2 (RP 2): Property Management, Project Delivery and Optional Services Procurement Project

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

We were advised that a contract had been issued to the successful bidder on June 3, 2013. Regret letters were forwarded to the unsuccessful bidders on the same day.  During the period June 24 to 27, 2013 we observed face to face debriefings provided to the unsuccessful bidders as well as to the successful bidder. One unsuccessful bidder indicated that it might wish to have a further debriefing, however on July 24, 2013 we were advised by the Contracting Authority that the bidder had stated that it would not require a further debriefing.

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 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.

___________________
Peter Woods
Chef d'équipe