Procurement Process for Shared Travel Services
Fairness Monitor Final Report
March 17, 2013
Submitted to: Director General, Operational Integrity Sector, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Departmental Oversight Branch
Prepared By: Lansdowne Technologies Inc.
Table of Contents
- 1. Background/Introduction
- 2. Procurement Requirement - Scope & Background
- 3. Attestation of Assurance
- 4. Methodology
- 5. Reference Documents
1. Background/Introduction
Lansdowne Technologies Inc. was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe all stages of the procurement process for the Shared Travel Services for the Government of Canada, including the development and issuing by Public Works and Government Services Canada of:
- a Request for Information (Solicitation No. EP398-110362/A);
- a Notice of Intent to Release Draft Request for Proposal (EP398-110362/B)
- a First Draft Request for Proposal (Solicitation No. EP398-110362/C);
- a Second Draft Request for Proposal (Solicitation No. EP398-110362/D); and
- a Final Request for Proposal (Solicitation No. EP398-110362/E).
Lansdowne Technologies Inc. is an independent third party with respect to this activity. We reviewed all of the information provided and observed the relevant activities.
We hereby submit the Final Report, covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor, commencing October 27, 2009 with the observation of the development and issuing of the Request for Information (RFI) and continuing through to the evaluation processes for the Final RFP.
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.
2. Procurement Requirement - Scope & Background
The procurement process monitored for fairness is for Shared Travel Services (STS). The STS Initiative is a federal program that supports public officials in the planning and execution of commercially available, work-related travel. The STS contract will involve the provision of travel-related information, services, electronic tools and support to facilitate:
- travel planning and cost estimation;
- travel requests and authorizations;
- travel bookings and reservations;
- travel cards (personal and departmental);
- traveler emergency support; and
- expense report generation for reimbursement for travel expenses.
The STS contractor will support the Government of Canada in the overall management and administration of federal travel through facilitating approval and payment processes, ensuring policy compliance, and consolidating records for reporting and business intelligence purposes. STSI services are supplied through on-line, telephone or in-person delivery channels.
Travel administration and support services are currently being provided under a contract issued on November 28, 2003, running for a period of 7 years with additional option periods, which is supplemented by a number of supply arrangements for specialized services. The re-procurement of Shared Travel Services was being tendered competitively, with the intent to establish a single contract for a duration of 9 years plus irrevocable options for up to 3 additional years in increments not less than 6 months.
The Contracting and Technical Authorities for this procurement are from PWGSC.
3. Attestation of Assurance
The Fairness Monitor hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the Shared Travel Services procurement process:
It is our professional opinion that the competitive procurement process for the Shared Travel Services that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.
_______________________________
Lorne Schmidt, PEng, Project Management Professional (PMP)
Fairness Monitor Specialist
_______________________________
Michel Anglehart, ing, PMP
Fairness Monitor Team Leader
President, Lansdowne Technologies Inc.
4. Methodology
Lansdowne Technologies Inc. was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe all stages of the procurement process for the Shared Travel Services for the Government of Canada, and to attest to the fairness of this monitored activity. In accordance with the Fairness Monitor Statement of Work, "Fairness is defined as decisions made objectively, free from personal favouritism, political influence, and encompasses the elements of openness, competitiveness, transparency and compliance".
In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant documents and observed the RFI, Draft RFPs, Final RFP and evaluation stages of the procurement process, identified fairness-related matters to the Technical Team and Contracting Authority and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.
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.| Date | Procurement Activity |
|---|---|
| 26 May 2010 | RFI issued on MERX for industry input and comment |
| 25 Aug 2010 | Closing date for industry input and comment on RFI |
| Nov 2010 | Vendor demonstrations completed |
| 03 Mar 2011 | Notice issued on MERX notifying of intent to publish Draft RFP |
| 12 Apr 2011 | First Draft RFP issued on MERX for industry comment |
| 07 Jun 2011 | Closing date for industry comment on First Draft RFP |
| 22 Jul 2011 | Second Draft RFP issued on MERX for industry comment |
| 11 Aug 2011 | Bidder Information Session |
| 06 Oct 2011 | Closing date for industry comment on Second Draft RFP |
| 13 Oct 2011 | Final RFP issued on MERX to solicit proposals from industry |
| 10 Feb 2012 | Initial Closing date for submission of proposals in response to Final RFP |
| 27 Jan 2012 | Publication of Amendment 015 with revised closing date for submission of proposals in response to Final RFP |
| 06 Mar 2012 | Publication of Amendment 028, the final amendment to the Final RFP |
| 09 Mar 2012 | Amended Closing date for submission of proposals in response to Final RFP |
| Mar - Nov 2012 | Proposal Evaluation |
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.| Procurement Stage | Bidder Questions Received and Answered | PWGSC Initiated RFP Changes / Questions | Amendments |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFI | 34 | 8 | |
| First Draft RFP | 205 | 2 | 8 |
| Second Draft RFP | 122 | 8 | 14 |
| Final RFP | 149 | 30 | 28 |
4.1 FM Activities and Findings during the RFI Phase
During the period October 27, 2009 to May 23, 2010, we reviewed:
- Non-Disclosure Agreements of personnel involved in the development of the STS procurement documents;
- RFP Evaluation Summary Report from the 2003 Shared Travel Services Initiative (STSI) procurement process;
- 2008 STSI Lessons Learned document;
- Slide deck and Contracting Authority's log from one-on-one vendor information sessions (held between April 23 and December 21, 2009);
- draft versions of the RFI; and
- various STSI internal reports and documents.
We provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials.
During the period May 26, 2010 when the RFI was posted on MERX and August 25, 2010, the last day for submission of responses, we reviewed the Final RFI as posted on MERX, Questions and Answers (Qs&As) concerning the RFI and Amendments 001 to 008 and provided fairness related comments. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs&As process and the amendments to the RFI.
A total of 13 vendors responded to the RFI. Vendor inquiries concerning the RFI were fully addressed and were handled in the manner set out in the RFI instructions. RFI responses submitted by Industry were managed as described in RFI instructions and all were scrutinized as part of the review process. Potential fairness considerations raised in vendors' responses were noted for re-examination in the RFP stage of the procurement, though no fairness issues were identified. As a result, the RFI stage contributed to a fair procurement process for STS.
Provisions set out in the RFI indicated that Canada could, at its discretion, contact any RFI respondents to follow up with additional questions or for clarification of any aspect of a vendor's RFI response. PWGSC elected to issue RFI follow-up clarification questions to five vendors, who each chose to respond through a one-hour presentation as per the options stated in the RFI. Clarification / follow-up questions were relevant to the RFI process and facilitated the gathering of specific information content that was directly related to RFI responses. The process, instructions and rules for handling clarification / follow-up questions and responses were adhered to, no matters arose which raised any questions of fairness and vendors were accorded the same treatment, contributing to a fair procurement process for STS.
In response to a question from industry that was received during the RFI Qs&As period, provision was made for product demonstrations (e.g. demonstration of automated on-line booking and expense management tools) to be carried out at Canada's discretion. PWGSC stipulated that vendors were to indicate in their RFI submissions whether they were interested in giving such a demonstration. The response was published as part of the RFI question and answer process. Eligibility for the demonstration was extended to vendors who did not respond to the RFI.
Demonstrations were carried out during the period from October 13 to November 10, 2010. Vendors were afforded the same opportunity to conduct a product demonstration and all instructions and directions communicated were adhered to, as were the time limits set out. All vendors were accorded the same treatment during the demonstration process; given the same opportunity to illustrate how their products could meet PWGSC requirements; and none were provided any information by Canada concerning the future development of the requirement for the re-procurement. As a result, the demonstrations contributed to a fair procurement process for STS.
In parallel with the RFI process, a client consultation process was carried out by the STS office in order to solicit feedback from Federal government departments. This process involved the circulation of a next-draft Statement of Work for STS that was based upon the draft Statement of Work published with the RFI and further developed from vendor feedback collected through the RFI process. Instructions and notices were issued electronically to participants providing guidance that ensured that the material distributed (e.g. next-draft SOW) and returned (e.g. participant feedback) was protected from disclosure to unauthorized parties.
4.2 FM Activities and Findings during the Draft RFP Phase
During the period of January to October 2011, the Fairness Monitor observed the continued development and publication of the Draft RFP. The first Draft RFP was issued on MERX on April 11, 2011 with submissions of comments by industry due on June 7, 2011. The second Draft RFP was issued on MERX on July 21, 2011 with submissions of comments by industry due on October 6, 2011. An information session between PWGSC and industry was also held on August 11, 2011 and monitored by the FM.
Fairness considerations identified during the RFI stage were re-examined during the development of the Draft RFP documentation and appropriate observations were raised with both the Contracting and Technical Authorities. We reviewed the first and second Draft RFPs as posted on MERX, Qs&As concerning the Draft RFPs, and all amendments and provided fairness related comments. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs&As process and the amendments to the draft RFPs.
Prior to the second Draft RFP response closing date, a Bidder Information Session was held between PWGSC and industry to address key areas of concern expressed by industry regarding the STS procurement and allow for an open discussion and the sharing of information. All potential bidders were notified of the date, time and location for the bidder information session in a timely manner so as not to preclude any participation. The PWGSC presentation was available to all potential bidders attending the session and was available upon request for any who did not attend. The information session afforded every possibility for potential bidders to participate in the discussion and to freely pose questions. It was observed that sufficient time was allotted to cover the session and that those in attendance actively participated in the exchange of information.
A total of eight vendors responded to the Draft RFPs. Vendor enquiries concerning the Draft RFPs were fully addressed and were handled in the manner set out in the Draft RFP Instructions to Bidders. Draft RFP responses submitted by vendors were managed as described in RFP instructions and all were scrutinized as part of the review process. Potential fairness considerations raised in potential bidder responses were noted for re-examination in the development of the Final RFP, though no fairness issues were noted. As a result, the Draft RFPs contributed to a fair procurement process.
4.3 FM Activities and Findings during the Final RFP Solicitation Phase
During the period of October 12, 2011 to March 9, 2012, the Fairness Monitor observed the solicitation period of the Final RFP. We reviewed the Final RFP as posted on MERX, Qs&As concerning the Final RFP, and all amendments and provided fairness related comments. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs&As process and the amendments to the Final RFP. A total of two bidders responded to the Final RFP.
During the Final RFP solicitation period, the Fairness Monitor reviewed the internal draft Evaluation Plans and Evaluation Guidelines. These documents were to be finalized following the close of the solicitation when the number of bidders would be known and schedules could be established. All comments provided by the Fairness Monitor on the draft detailed internal Evaluation Plans and Guidelines were considered and appropriately addressed.
Potential bidder enquiries concerning the Final RFP were fully addressed and were handled in the manner set out in the Final RFP Instructions to Bidders. Potential fairness considerations raised in potential bidder responses to the RFI and RFP were re-examined in the development of the Final RFP, clarified during the Final RFP Qs&As process and where appropriate, changes were made and issued in the amendments. For example, when requests to increase the length of the transition period came from multiple vendors and with supporting rationale, the impact on the delivery of the required services and related risks was examined and subsequently an amendment was issued to change the transition period from 9 months to 12 months.
No fairness issues were noted during the Final RFP solicitation period. As a result, the Final RFP Solicitation process contributed to a fair procurement process for STS.
4.4 FM Activities and Findings during the Final RFP Evaluation Phase
During the period of March 9, 2012 to November 30, 2012, the Fairness Monitor observed the evaluation of the two proposals received in response to the Final RFP and the writing of the Evaluation Report. We observed:
- the finalization of the Evaluation Plan, Evaluation Guidelines and Evaluation Schedule;
- the process for handling, storing and accessing the proposals and related evaluation materials;
- the individual evaluator scoring sheets;
- telephone and in-person interviews with the bidders' references;
- the review and consensus discussions of the Mandatory Requirements;
- the review and consensus discussions of the Rated Requirements;
- the Product Demonstrations;
- the validation of the Product Demonstration scores from the recorded video of each session;
- the Usability Assessments;
- the validation of the technical evaluation results by the Contracting Authority;
- the calculation of the financial scores (the Fairness Monitor saw, but did not read any part of the Financial Proposals); and
- the compilation and finalization of the Evaluation Report.
It was observed that the evaluation processes and instructions published in the Final RFP, the RFP amendments and the Evaluation Plan and Guidelines were followed during the evaluation phase. The Fairness Monitor provided comments when requested and where appropriate throughout the evaluation process to the Technical Team and the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials. No fairness issues were identified. As a result, the evaluation of the proposals received in response to the Final RFP contributed to a fair procurement process.
5. Reference Documents
The following documents are referenced in this report and unless otherwise indicated, are available through PWGSC.
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 | MERX Notice for " SHARED TRAVEL SERVICES" Letter of Interest (LOI) | Date Published: 2010-05-26 (Solicitation documents use both "LOI" and "RFI". PWGSC Supply Manual does not distinguish between the terms.) |
| 2 | Request for Information | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-05-25 |
| 3 | Amendment No. 001 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-06-23 |
| 4 | Amendment No. 002 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-06-28 |
| 5 | Amendment No. 003 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-07-20 |
| 6 | Amendment No. 004 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-07-23 |
| 7 | Amendment No. 005 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-08-05 |
| 8 | Amendment No. 006 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-08-09 |
| 9 | Amendment No. 007 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-08-11 |
| 10 | Amendment No. 008 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2010-08-18 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | MERX Notice for " SHARED TRAVEL SERVICES" Notice of Proposed Procurement | Date Published: 2011-03-09 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | MERX Notice for " SHARED TRAVEL SERVICES" Notice of Proposed Procurement | Date Published: 2011-04-12 |
| 13 | Draft Request for Proposal | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-04-11 |
| 14 | Amendment No. 001 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-04-13 |
| 15 | Amendment No. 002 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-02 |
| 16 | Amendment No. 003 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-04 |
| 17 | Amendment No. 004 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-12 |
| 18 | Amendment No. 005 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-19 |
| 19 | Amendment No. 006 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-20 |
| 20 | Amendment No. 007 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-05-26 |
| 21 | Amendment No. 008 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-06-06 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 22 | MERX Notice for " SHARED TRAVEL SERVICES" Notice of Proposed Procurement | Date Published: 2011-07-22 |
| 23 | Draft Request for Proposal | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-07-21 |
| 24 | Amendment No. 001 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-07-22 |
| 25 | Amendment No. 002 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-08-08 |
| 26 | Amendment No. 003 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-08-10 |
| 27 | Amendment No. 004 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-08-11 |
| 28 | Amendment No. 005 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-08-19 |
| 29 | Amendment No. 006 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-08-26 |
| 30 | Amendment No. 007 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-01 |
| 31 | Amendment No. 008 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-07 |
| 32 | Amendment No. 009 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-13 |
| 33 | Amendment No. 010 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-14 |
| 34 | Amendment No. 011 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-15 |
| 35 | Amendment No. 012 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-16 |
| 36 | Amendment No. 013 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-09-20 |
| 37 | Amendment No. 014 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-03 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 38 | MERX Notice for " SHARED TRAVEL SERVICES" Notice of Proposed Procurement | Date Published: 2011-10-13 |
| 39 | Request for Proposal | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-12 |
| 40 | Amendment No. 001 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-13 |
| 41 | Amendment No. 002 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-19 |
| 42 | Amendment No. 003 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-24 |
| 43 | Amendment No. 004 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-25 |
| 44 | Amendment No. 005 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-10-28 |
| 45 | Amendment No. 006 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-11-03 |
| 46 | Amendment No. 007 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-11-28 |
| 47 | Amendment No. 008 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-12-05 |
| 48 | Amendment No. 009 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-12-06 |
| 49 | Amendment No. 010 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2011-12-14 |
| 50 | Amendment No. 011 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-04 |
| 51 | Amendment No. 012 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-12 |
| 52 | Amendment No. 013 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-18 |
| 53 | Amendment No. 014 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-20 |
| 54 | Amendment No. 015 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-26 |
| 55 | Amendment No. 016 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-01-27 |
| 56 | Amendment No. 017 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-02 |
| 57 | Amendment No. 018 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-06 |
| 58 | Amendment No. 019 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-10 |
| 59 | Amendment No. 020 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-15 |
| 60 | Amendment No. 021 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-17 |
| 61 | Amendment No. 022 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-22 |
| 62 | Amendment No. 023 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-23 |
| 63 | Amendment No. 024 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-24 |
| 64 | Amendment No. 025 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-02-29 |
| 65 | Amendment No. 026 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-03-01 |
| 66 | Amendment No. 027 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-03-02 |
| 67 | Amendment No. 028 | Posted on MERX, document dated 2012-03-05 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 68 | Technical Bid Evaluation Plan | Dated: 2012-04-03 |
Addendum to the Final Report
26 August 2013
Addendum to Fairness Monitor Final Report dated 17 March 2013 on the Procurement Process for Shared Travel Services by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).
This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase and addresses specifically the process for debriefing the unsuccessful bidder and the review of the contact. There were two bids submitted in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP).
The unsuccessful bidder was advised of the results of the evaluation in a letter dated March 25, 2013 in which they were informed of the Total Technical Score, the Financial Score and the Total Score of both bids as well as the price of the awarded contract and the name of the successful bidder. PWGSC elected to conduct the bidder's debriefing with the unsuccessful bidder in writing due to the complexity of the technical evaluation, which is consistent with Section 1.3 of Part 1 of the RFP, which states: "The debriefing may be provided in writing, by telephone or in person." Additional correspondence from the debriefing process with the unsuccessful bidder was reviewed. This correspondence provided additional details on the bidder's evaluation results and responded to specific questions from the bidder with the last item of correspondence being a letter from PWGSC to the bidder dated 16 July 2013. No fairness issues were identified.
The Fairness Monitor reviewed the Shared Travel Services contract (EP398-110362/001/XN) issued on 25 March 2013 with respect to the associated Request for Proposal. As reported by the PWGSC Contracting Authority, there were no discussions or negotiations conducted between Canada and the successful bidder. The bidder's proposal was accepted and the contract issued accordingly. Administrative changes from the RFP were implemented in the contract (e.g. addition of points of contact).
The Fairness Monitor hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the Shared Travel Services procurement process:
It is our professional opinion that the competitive procurement process for the Shared Travel Services that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.
_______________________________
Lorne Schmidt, PEng, PMP
Fairness Monitor Specialist
_______________________________
Michel Anglehart, ing, PMP
Fairness Monitor Team Leader
President, Lansdowne Technologies Inc.
- Date modified: