Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue lifeboats

On this page

• 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

As Fairness Monitor (FM), Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture (hereafter referred to as the Fairness Monitor) hereby submits its Fairness Monitor Contractor’s Final Report (FM Final Report) pertaining to the competitive procurement process for the acquisition of Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue Lifeboats (CCG SAR Lifeboats). This competitive process was undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) through Solicitation Number F7047-141000/C.

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

This Final Report covers our activities commencing prior to the release of the Request for Proposal (RFP), through the RFP phase, the evaluation of proposals and the selection of recommended bidders.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and details of our activities, including any relevant findings from the activities undertaken.

Project requirement

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) has a requirement for fourteen (14) Search and Rescue (SAR) Lifeboats with an option for an additional six (6) SAR Lifeboats. The primary function of the SAR Lifeboats is maritime search and rescue, which requires the vessels to conduct searches on water, to respond to marine distress calls, and to provide assistance to disabled vessels, as well as to provide a variety of related services. Secondary functions will include maritime security, aids to navigation, environmental responses, ecosystems and ocean science and fisheries management, conservation and protection.

A Construction Specification was provided by Canada. The Contractors will perform all work required to construct and deliver the SAR Lifeboats including a Design Check, Initial Design, Production Design, Construction, Tests and Trials, Certification, Acceptance and Warranty. The Contractors will also provide the Integrated Logistics Support required to develop and deliver the products required to support and operate the SAR Lifeboats.

Canada intends to award a contract to each of the two highest scoring bidders for the supply of seven (7) vessels by each of the two bidders, and options for an additional three (3) vessels each to the two bidders.

Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor (FM) hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement which follows concerning the competitive procurement process for the Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue Lifeboats (CCG SAR Lifeboats).

It is the professional opinion of the Fairness Monitor that the competitive procurement process for the CCG SAR Lifeboats was conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner.

“Fair” is defined as decisions made objectively, free from bias, favouritism or influence and conform to established rules.

“Open” is defined as an activity that is accessible to all potential participants, without unjustified restrictions as to who may participate.

“Transparent” is defined as providing information to the public and interested parties in a timely manner that facilitates public scrutiny.

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.

Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology

The overall objective was to provide independent observation of the process and to submit fairness related comments to project officials for the procurement, as early as possible, so that appropriate action could be taken to address the comments before fairness was impacted. The Director Fairness Monitoring would be advised of any fairness related concerns that were not addressed promptly. At the conclusion of the procurement process an assurance statement as to its fairness would be provided.

To accomplish the objective we undertook the following activities and, where applicable, provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority:

• became familiar with the project governance structure and background information;
• reviewed the RFP in draft and final form;
• reviewed all amendments to the RFP as well as questions submitted by bidders and answers provided;
• observed the Bidders’ Conference;
• 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 bid evaluation and contractor selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process; and
• observed the debriefing of 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 prior to the Request for proposal phase

Prior to the initiation of FM activities, a Letter of Interest (LOI) had been posted on BuyandSell on January 29, 2014 and had closed on March 4, 2014. It included a draft RFP and requested responses to several questions. After the initiation of FM activities on September 25, 2014, we reviewed the LOI and its attachments and the responses to it as part of the background information.

During the period October 6, 2014 to November 14, 2014, we reviewed further draft versions of the RFP and its attachments. During the period October 19, 2014 to November 7, 2014, we provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings during the Request for proposal phase

On November 26, 2014 we reviewed the RFP as posted on BuyandSell (Document 1) the same day. During the period December 3, 2014 to March 6, 2015, we reviewed in draft and final versions, Amendments 1 to 32 ( Documents 2 to 33). The Amendments included questions from interested suppliers and answers. Fairness related comments were provided on the RFP and amendments and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

During the period December 9, 2014 to January 9, 2015, we reviewed plans for significant changes to the RFP. These proposed changes involved increasing the number of vessels to be procured and changing the basis of selection to provide for two (2) bidders to be awarded contracts. Potential bidders were notified of these pending changes in RFP Amendment 8 (Document 9) and the revisions were made in RFP Amendment 11 (Document 12). The Closing Date was also extended to allow bidders time to adjust. We provided fairness related comments and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On January 23, 2015 we observed the Bidders’ Conference and post meetings discussions with the project team. We also reviewed the notes of the Bidders Conference prepared by the project team. Fairness related observations were provided to the Contracting Authority regarding Conference action items. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

During the period February 19, 2015 to March 10, 2015, we discussed with the Contracting Authority a matter raised by a component supplier and provided fairness related comments. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

The RFP closed on March 12, 2015.

Fairness monitor activities and findings on the evaluation phase

During the period March 13 to 18, 2015, we reviewed the Evaluation Directive and Evaluation Guide and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken.

On March 18, 2015 we observed the PWGSC Evaluation Meeting during which the PWGSC team reviewed responses to mandatory response and contractual requirements. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. On the same day, we also observed in progress individual evaluations of Rated Technical Requirements by the CCG Technical Evaluation Team. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On March 25 and 26, 2015 we observed consensus meetings of the CCG Technical Evaluation Team. Both Mandatory Technical and Rated Technical Requirements were considered and consensus results agreed. Best evaluation practices were used.

Also on March 26, 2015 we observed a meeting of the PWGSC team which reviewed responses to both Mandatory and Rated Technical Requirements in preparation for the CCG/PWGSC Evaluation Review Committee meeting. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On April 1, 2015 we observed the meeting of the CCG/PWGSC Evaluation Review Committee. The objective of the CCG/PWGSC Evaluation Review Committee was to challenge the results of the CCG Technical Evaluation to ensure each result was justified by the specific response and the scoring guide. As a result of the discussions the CCG Technical Evaluation Team Leader agreed to reconvene the CCG Technical Evaluation Team to reconsider two specific responses and the resulting scores. Subsequently, the CCG Evaluation Team agreed by consensus to change the two scores.  Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On April 16, 2015 we reviewed the financial evaluation results and the application of the basis of selection. The financial evaluation and basis of selection were straightforward and had previously been re-checked several times. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in this report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the CCG SAR Lifeboat Contracting Authority.

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)	Dated November 25, 2014
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Dated December 2, 2014
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Dated December 5, 2014
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Dated December 12, 2014
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Dated December 15, 2014
6	Amendment 5 to RFP	Dated December 17, 2014
7	Amendment 6 to RFP	Dated December 18, 2014
8	Amendment 7 to RFP	Dated December 22, 2014
9	Amendment 8 to RFP	Dated December 23, 2014
10	Amendment 9 to RFP	Dated December 30, 2014
11	Amendment 10 to RFP	Dated January 5, 2015
12	Amendment11 to RFP	Dated January 8, 2015
13	Amendment 12 to RFP	Dated January 9, 2015
14	Amendment 13 to RFP	Dated January 12, 2015
15	Amendment 14 to RFP	Dated January 15, 2015
16	Amendment 15 to RFP	Dated January 20, 2015
17	Amendment 16 to RFP	Dated January 21, 2015
18	Amendment 17 to RFP	Dated January 22, 2015
19	Amendment 18 to RFP	Dated January 27, 2015
20	Amendment 19 to RFP	Dated January 28, 2015
21	Amendment 20 to RFP	Dated February 2, 2015
22	Amendment 21 to RFP	Dated February 2, 2015
23	Amendment 22 to RFP	Dated February 5, 2015
24	Amendment 23 to RFP	Dated February 6, 2015
25	Amendment 24 to RFP	Dated February 12, 2015
26	Amendment 25 to RFP	Dated February 14, 2015
27	Amendment 26 to RFP	Dated February 17, 2015
28	Amendment 27 to RFP	Dated February 18, 2015
29	Amendment 28 to RFP	Dated February 23, 2015
30	Amendment 29 to RFP	Dated February 25, 2015
31	Amendment 30 to RFP	Dated March 3, 2015
32	Amendment 31 to RFP	Dated March 3, 2015
33	Amendment 32 to RFP	Dated March 5, 2015

Addendum to the final report
November 6, 2015

Addendum to fairness monitor final report dated April 27, 2015, concerning the Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue lifeboats

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase through debriefings of unsuccessful bidders.

In accordance with the RFP, two contracts were awarded on July 9, 2015. On July 8, 2015 we reviewed letters to be forwarded to the four unsuccessful bidders. Each provided the overall results of the evaluation including the total technical scores and financial scores achieved by the two successful bidders as well as those of the specific unsuccessful bidder to whom the letter was addressed. Where applicable, the letter also outlined the reason a mandatory requirement was not met. Each letter also offered to provide further details on the evaluation results of the bidder’s proposal. On July 13 and 14, 2015, we observed three verbal debriefings, one of which was conducted via teleconference.

The other unsuccessful bidder elected to file a formal complaint (File No. Pr-2015-021) with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). The CITT issued a denial of the complaint on October 1, 2015.

Fairness Monitor attestation of assurance

It is the professional opinion of the Fairness Monitor that the post evaluation activities, including the provision of written debriefing (“feedback”) letters, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.