Vocational rehabilitation and vocational assistance services

Table of contents

• 1. Background
  • 1.1 Project requirement
• 2. Attestation of assurance
• 3. Methodology
  • 3.1 Request for proposal phase
    • 3.1.1 Activity monitored
    • 3.1.2 Bid submissions
  • 3.2 Proposal submission stage
    • 3.2.1 Activity monitored
    • 3.2.2 Technical proposal evaluation
    • 3.2.3 Price proposal
  • 3.3. Fairness monitor specialist observations
• 4. Reference documents

1. Background

PPI Consulting Limited (PPI) was engaged by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on 27 November, 2012, as the Fairness Monitor (FM) contractor to observe the procurement process related to Veterans Affairs Canada’s procurement of Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Assistance Services.

We hereby submit our Final Report, covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor for this procurement.

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.

1.1 Project requirement

Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) provides rehabilitation services to eligible veterans, spouses/common-law partners and survivors to assist eligible participants to improve their employability and/or capacity for suitable gainful employment in civilian life.

By means of Solicitation # 51019-128004/A, issued on October 3, 2013, VAC issued a Request for Proposals to select a contractor to provide the vocational rehabilitation and vocational assistance services portion of VAC's rehabilitation program.

2. Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the evaluation of the proposals received in response to PWGSC Solicitation No. 51019-128004/A. It is our professional opinion that the RFP process for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Assistance Services for Veterans Affairs Canada that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

3. Methodology

PPI Consulting Limited was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the Request for Proposals (RFP) and subsequent proposal evaluation for the procurement of Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Assistance Services, and 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 documents, observed the pre-bid solicitation activities, the bid solicitation activities including the evaluation of the written proposal and the price proposal, identifying fairness-related matters to the Contracting Authority and Veterans Affairs Technical Authority and ensuring that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

3.1 Request for proposal phase

3.1.1 Activity monitored

During the period up to and including the posting of the RFP on October 3, 2013, neither a vendor conference nor a vendor consultation process was conducted. All communications with the FM Specialist were therefore conducted either in writing or via telephone with the Contracting Authority or the client Team Lead.

During the RFP phase of the initiative, i.e. December 2012 to October 2013, the following documents were provided to PPI for review:

• Draft solicitation documents: The FM Specialist was provided with multiple iterations of the draft documents for review and provided fairness observations via the Contracting Authority to the client. All fairness observations were addressed to the FM Specialist’s satisfaction.
• Evaluation Plan: The FM Specialist was provided with multiple iterations of the draft Evaluation Plan for review and provided fairness observations to the client via the Contracting Authority with respect to some lack of clarity in the Evaluation Plan and scoring methodology. All fairness observations were addressed to the FM Specialist’s satisfaction.
• The final solicitation document RFP # 51019-128004/A, dated October 3, 2013 was provided to the FM Specialist and represented the draft documents that had been reviewed and clarified during the period January 2013 to September 2013.
• Proponent Clarification Questions and Answers during bid open period: During the bid open period, the FM Specialist was provided with vendor clarification questions and the draft responses for review. Questions were compiled as they were received and responses drafted on an ongoing basis. All fairness observations were addressed to the FM Specialist’s satisfaction.
• Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 were provided to the FM Specialist containing the clarification questions and responses agreed to during the drafting process. Amendment # 1 was dated October 22, 2013, Amendment #2 was dated November 14, 2013, Amendment #3 was dated December 2, 2013 and Amendment #4 was dated December 10, 2013. In all cases, the content of the Amendments had been reviewed by the FM Specialist in draft form prior to posting.

The documents and activities, including the posting of the RFP on the open bidding system and the equal opportunity to ask clarification questions, all supported the fairness, openness and transparency of the process.

3.1.2 Bid submissions

PWGSC received three (3) proposals by the closing date and time on December 17, 2013.

3.2 Proposal submission stage

3.2.1 Activity monitored

The Fairness Monitor Specialist attended the following meetings with respect to the evaluation of the proposals received in response to the VAC Rehabilitation Assistance and Vocational Assistance RFP:

• Technical Proposal Evaluator Briefing
• Consensus Scoring of Technical Proposals
• Teleconferences with PWGSC to review financial documentation.
• During this period the following documents were provided to PPI for review:
• Evaluator Briefing presentation
• Third party Financial Assessment report
• Bidder Price Proposal

3.2.2 Technical proposal evaluation

The Fairness Monitor attended the Evaluator Briefing. The evaluation team was briefed on all issues related to conducting the evaluation in accordance with the stipulated selection process, including roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, document control, evaluator conduct, independent assessment, consensus process, schedule, and an explanation of clarification versus bid repair.

The following process was undertaken to evaluate proposals:

• Each evaluator conducted their own independent review and scoring of the proposals in their evaluator workbook.
• Once the independent reviews were completed, the evaluators participated in consensus meetings to agree on the score to be assigned to each rated requirement. The scores and the rationale for the scores were recorded in the master record. Subject Matter Experts were consulted for expertise on specific sections of the RFP.
• Evaluators recorded and initialled any changes agreed to during consensus in their individual workbooks.
• The Fairness Monitor confirmed with each member of the evaluation team that they were in agreement with the final consensus scores.
• All evaluators confirmed their agreement.
• The evaluation team signed the consensus record.

The Fairness Monitor witnessed the consensus sessions and confirms that the process was conducted appropriately in accordance with the process established in the RFP and in a fair, open and transparent manner. At the conclusion of the technical proposal evaluation, only one proposal was deemed to have met the minimum requirements of the RFP.

3.2.3 Price proposal

The FM Specialist was provided with the Basis of Payment pricing documentation of the one compliant proposal for review. The price proposal was complete and complied with the requirements of the RFP. There were no caveats or assumptions included in the price proposal.

3.3 Fairness monitor specialist observations

The FM Specialist reviewed and provided fairness observations with respect to solicitation documents during the RFP development and finalization phase of the initiative up to the posting of the RFP on the open bidding system and during the subsequent evaluation of proposals.

Any observations made by the FM Specialist were addressed by the VAC team and by the Contracting Authority. Both the VAC team and the Contracting Authority were responsive in providing clarification when requested by the FM Specialist.

During the clarification process, questions from vendors were logged, and a draft response created by the VAC team or the Contracting Authority as applicable. The FM Specialist was included in the review of the responses. Both the VAC team and the Contracting Authority were responsive in providing clarification to any observations made by the FM Specialist.

During the consensus scoring sessions, the FM Specialist observed that the evaluators had been diligent and thorough in their review of each proposal and no bias, either for or against, was observed by the FM Specialist. All proposals were evaluated fairly and consistently.

4. 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 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	Document date/number
1	Final solicitation document RFP # 51019-128004/A	October 3, 2013
2	Amendment 1	October 22, 2013
3	Amendment 2	November 14, 2013
4	Amendment 3	December 2, 2013
5	Amendment 4	December 10, 2013
6	Evaluation Grid Final	February 25, 2014
7	Completed and signed Evaluator Consensus Scoring Records	April 4, 2014
8	Price proposal of preferred Proponent	May 1, 2014
9	Emails between CA, PWGSC Cost Analyst and the preferred Proponent	May 5 & 6, 2014

Veterans Affairs

Request for proposal for vocational rehabilitation and vocational assistance services

Addendum to the Final Report
May 1, 2015

Addendum to fairness monitor final report dated July 25, 2014

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase up to and including contract award.

Contract award

The successful bidder was selected and a contract awarded on December 5, 2014. One of the unsuccessful bidders requested a debriefing and this was conducted on March 24, 2015.

It is our professional opinion that the Veterans Affairs procurement process for Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Assistance Services that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.