Real Property 1 (RP1) – Property Management and Project Delivery Services

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project Requirement
• 3. Attestation of Assurance
• 4. Methodology
• 5. FM Activities and Observations
  • 5.1 RFP Development and Issuance
  • 5.2 RFP Close
  • 5.3 Evaluation Plan and Training
  • 5.4 RFP Mandatory Technical Review
  • 5.5 RFP Evaluation
    • 5.5.1 Technical Evaluation
    • 5.5.2 Financial Evaluation
  • 5.6 Communications and Debriefing
• 6. Reference Documents

1. Introduction

PPI Consulting Limited (PPI) was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) Specialist to observe the Real Property 1 (RP1) - Property Management and Project Delivery Services procurement process. The initial phase began with aRequest for Information (RFI)issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on December 17, 2010. PPI Consulting Limited was engaged on December 17, 2010 at the time of the first Request for Information (RFI) issuance. Subsequently, PWGSC issued a second Request for Information (RFI#2) on August 16, 2012. PPI also monitored the second RFI process. On October 10, 2013 the (RP1) - Property Management and Project Delivery Services Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada as a result of solicitation EP008-112560/D.

PPI Consulting Limited is an independent third party with respect to this activity. We reviewed all information provided to us and observed all relevant activities as described below and in accordance with our mandate.

We hereby submit this Fairness Monitor Final Report, covering the activities of the FM Specialist for the RP1 Property Management and Project Delivery process.

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. Project Requirement

Our fairness monitoring services and mandate involved the monitoring of the fairness, openness and transparency of the RP1 - Property Management and Project Delivery Services procurement process, a large scale, national, real estate outsourcing procurement. Former procurement processes for these outsourced real estate services were known as Alternative Forms of Delivery (AFD).

The intent of the RP1 RFP was to select a successful proponent per region to deliver the outsourcing real estate services inclusive of property management, project management and lease administration services. The RFP and ensuing contract were organized in accordance with specific regions across Canada. Proponents could submit a proposal for one or more regions and there were no restrictions on the number of regions a proponent could win.

The RFP open period involved a bidder's conference, the issuance of addenda, and responses to questions posed by potential proponents through the mechanism outlined in the RFP document.

3. Attestation of Assurance

The FM Specialist hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the RP1 Property Management and Project Delivery Services RFP procurementprocess.

It is our professional opinion that the RFI and RFP processes we observed, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

4. Methodology

PPI Consulting Limited was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the RP1 – Property Management and Project Delivery Services Request for Proposalsand to attest to the fairness, openness and transparency of this monitored activity.

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant documentation, attended the bidder's conference, reviewed amendments, attended the consensus evaluation sessions, and identified any potential fairness-related matters to the contracting authority for resolution.

5. FM Activities and Observations

5.1 RFP Development and Issuance

PPI monitored the development and issuance of the RFP. A review of the RFP drafts and final RFP documentation including a review of the bid price form(s) was conducted. The RFP, solicitation number EP008-112560/D, was issued on Buyandsell on October 10, 2013 with an initial closing date of January 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The closing date was further amended to January 31, 2014.

A total of one hundred (100) questions were received with responses to the questions posted on Buyandsell via addenda. There were eighteen (18) addenda issued which contained sixty-eight (68) changes to the RFP. The addenda were reviewed by the FM Specialist either prior to or post issuance of the addenda.

In addition, a bidder's conference was held on October 31, 2013 to provide potential proponents with the opportunity to attend a review, provided by the PWGSC RP1 project team, of the requirements contained in the RFP. Potential proponents unable to attend in person were able to connect through WebEx. Thirteen (13) firms registered to participate in the bidder's conference on October 31, 2013, either in person or by WebEx.

Observation: In reviewing the draft RFP documentation, fairness considerations were identified by the FM Specialist and were addressed prior to the issuance of the RFP. Throughout the RFP open period any fairness considerations identified and discussed with the Contracting Authority were addressed satisfactorily. Proponent questions were well documented and made publicly available throughout the entire RFP open period. PWGSC provided responses in a succinct and timely manner. Further, a summary report and verbatim transcripts of the bidder's conference were posted on Buyandsell.

5.2 RFP Close

The RFP closed on January 31, 2014. Proposals were received in accordance with the RFP instructions. The Fairness Monitor was not present at time of bid close to observe the receipt of proposals. In total three (3) proposals were received.

Observation: All three proposals met the submission deadline in accordance with the RFP.

5.3 Evaluation Plan and Training

An evaluation plan, which included an overview of the evaluation process consistent with the RFP, the roles of each resource involved in the evaluation, and the security and confidentiality protocols was developed and then reviewed by the FM Specialist.

A four-day evaluator training program was developed and provided to all members of the evaluation team. The training provided an overview of the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, evaluation criteria, as well as technical material in support of the evaluation criteria. The Fairness Monitor reviewed all training material and attended the training which included a review of the evaluation criteria.

Observations: The evaluation plan was comprehensive and all members involved in the evaluation met the responsibilities of their role in accordance with the evaluation plan. A potential conflict of interest was declared by one of the evaluators. As a result, the evaluator was removed from the evaluation team and was not replaced. The evaluation team consisted of six evaluators which was deemed sufficient to proceed. This was also deemed acceptable from a fairness perspective. Evaluator training included the instruction to read each entire proposal prior to assigning scores and creating evaluator notes.

5.4 RFP Mandatory Technical Review

The mandatory technical review was undertaken for all three proposals. A clarification was sought for one of the proposals. The Fairness Monitor was present and reviewed the clarification question and response provided by the proponent. All three proposals were deemed to have met the mandatory technical requirements.

Observation: The mandatory technical review was undertaken in accordance with the RFP.

5.5 RFP Evaluation

5.5.1 Technical Evaluation

The RFP included minimum technical evaluation thresholds, referred to as “gates”. There were two gates in total. Following the evaluation of the technical requirements which formed part of gate 1, the evaluation scores would be tabulated to determine the pass/fail status of each proponent. Only those proponents who passed gate 1 would proceed to the evaluation of gate 2 criteria; and only proponents who passed gate 2 would proceed to the financial evaluation.

In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation process also involved the validation of the scores for Information Management (IM) technical criteria via an IM demonstration session. The IM demonstration session was held for those proponents who passed gate 1. The Fairness Monitor attended all IM demonstration sessions, as well as the post IM demonstration evaluation consensus sessions. As stipulated in the RFP, the process only allowed for a decrease in score where information from a proponent's response was not validated during the IM demonstration process.

Two of the three proposals achieved the minimum thresholds and thus proceeded to the financial evaluation.

Observation: The Fairness Monitor was present and monitored the technical evaluation process. The evaluation was undertaken in a consistent fashion and the evaluation team reached consensus on the scores awarded to each proposal. No scores were adjusted as a result of the IM demonstration.

5.5.2 Financial Evaluation

The financial evaluation methodology outlined in the RFP was followed. This included a normalization (bidder fee against average) and subsequent determination of each proponent's financial score. The financial evaluation was undertaken by region.

In accordance with the RFP, the technical and financial scores were tabulated in order to determine the highest score. The PWGSC Contracting Authority performed due diligence and verification of the pricing forms submitted by proponents. An evaluation summary sheet was prepared by the PWGSC Contracting Authority which tabulated the technical and financial evaluation scores. This was validated by both the Contracting Authority and reviewed by the FM Specialist.

The proponent with the highest score, subject to the due diligence activities outlined in the RFP and subject to continued compliance with the required provisions (e.g. security, integrity measures), is to be recommended for contract award.

Observation: The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the provisions and methodology outlined in the RFP.

5.6 Communications and Debriefing

A Treasury Board (TB) submission is required for this project. As such, contract award and associated notification to proponents will be done following the TB submission and approval process. This section will therefore be completed as an Addendum to this report.

6. Reference Documents

The following documents are referenced in this report. Unless otherwise indicated, they are available through PWGSC.

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.

#	Document	Document date/number
1	Request for Proposal	Posted on Buy and Sell October 10, 2013
2	Amendment #1	Posted on Buy and Sell October 22, 2013
3	Amendment #2	Posted on Buy and Sell October 25, 2013
4	Amendment #3	Posted on Buy and Sell November 8, 2013
5	Amendment #4	Posted on Buy and Sell November 12, 2013
6	Amendment #5	Posted on Buy and Sell November 14, 2013
7	Amendment #6	Posted on Buy and Sell November 14, 2013
8	Amendment #7	Posted on Buy and Sell November 21, 2013
9	Amendment #8	Posted on Buy and Sell November 21, 2013
10	Amendment #9	Posted on Buy and Sell November 25, 2013
11	Amendment #10	Posted on Buy and Sell December 5, 2013
12	Amendment #11	Posted on Buy and Sell December 11, 2013
13	Amendment #12	Posted on Buy and Sell December 19, 2013
14	Amendment #13	Posted on Buy and Sell December 23, 2013
15	Amendment #14	Posted on Buy and Sell January 3, 2014
16	Amendment #15	Posted on Buy and Sell January 10, 2014
17	Amendment #16	Posted on Buy and Sell January 20, 2014
18	Amendment #17	Posted on Buy and Sell January 23, 2014
19	Amendment #18	Posted on Buy and Sell January 24, 2014

Addendum to the Final Report
January 6, 2015

Addendum to Fairness Monitor Final Report dated June 10, 2014.

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor (FM) Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase inclusive of debriefings and contract award.

Contract Award

The successful bidder was awarded six contracts (one for each of six regions) on November 7, 2014. The FM attended three debriefings with the successful bidder and the unsuccessful bidders during the period December 9 to 11, 2014.

It is our professional opinion that the RP1 procurement process we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

_______________________________________
John Davis, CEO, PPI Consulting Limited

______________________________________
Ian Brennan, CSCMP, FM Team Leader

_______________________________________
Mairi Curran, FM Specialist