Postal Station B envelope rehabilitation & base building upgrade – prime consultant

Fairness Monitor final report

Submission date

July 7, 2015

Submitted to

Director, Fairness Monitoring,
Departmental Oversight Branch
Public Works and Government Services Canada

Submitted by

RFPSOLUTIONS INC.
4043 Carling Ave., Suite 202
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K2K 2A4
Telephone: 613-271-6476
Fax: 613-271-7523
Website: RFPSOLUTIONS INC.

PDF version (416KB)
Alternative Formats and Plug-ins

On this page

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Project requirement
• 3. Attestation of assurance
• 4. Methodology
• 5. Fairness Monitor activities and observations
  • 5.1 Procurement planning/pre-issue stage
  • 5.2 Request for proposals posting
  • 5.3 Request for proposals phase one close
  • 5.4 Request for proposals phase one evaluation instructions
  • 5.5 Request for proposals phase one mandatory requirement review
  • 5.6 Request for proposals phase one evaluation and rating
  • 5.7 Request for proposals phase two
  • 5.8 Request for proposals close
  • 5.9 Evaluation instructions
  • 5.10 Administrative review
  • 5.11 Technical evaluation
  • 5.12 Price evaluation and proponent selection
  • 5.13 Communications and debriefing
• 6. Reference documents

1. Introduction

RFPSOLUTIONS INC. was engaged as a Fairness Monitor to observe the competitive procurement process for a Prime Consultant for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project, issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) as a result of Solicitation Number EP775-142668/A. RFPSOLUTIONS INC. was engaged on April 15, 2014.

RFPSOLUTIONS INC. is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

Proponents were requested to submit a proposal in two phases. Phase One proposals covered the qualifications, experience and organization of the proposed Consultant Team. Following evaluation and rating of these proposals, proponents were advised of their results and had the opportunity to decide whether or not to continue their participation by submitting a Phase Two proposal. Phase Two proposals covered the detailed approach to the work, and the pricing and terms offered. A combination of the Phase One and Phase Two submissions constituted the final proposal.

We hereby submit this Final Report, covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor, commencing with the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) prior to posting on buyandsell.gc.ca continuing through the response to enquiries from potential proponents leading up to the Phase One submission closing period. This report also covers the Fairness Monitor activities with respect to evaluation of the Phase One submissions, a proponent site visit and response to enquiries from potential proponents leading to the Phase Two submission closing period and finally the evaluation of proposals leading to the identification of the successful proponent.

The 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 to date.

2. Project requirement

Postal Station B (PSB) is a 'Classified' federal heritage building located at 47-59 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario that requires major rehabilitation. Currently it serves a dual purpose by continuing to function as a postal facility while also providing office accommodations to the Privy Council Office (PCO). PSB is a 75-year old building that has not undergone a comprehensive rehabilitation since its original construction.

The project scope of work encompassed by the PSB Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade includes the following: envelope conservation, interior architectural work (including asbestos abatement), heating system replacement, plumbing system upgrade, HVAC upgrade, sprinkler upgrade, electrical system upgrade, control system upgrade, and seismic upgrade.

PWGSC requires an architectural firm in the capacity of Prime Consultant, supported by a multidisciplinary team of Sub-Consultants including a conservation architect, masonry conservator, structural engineer with heritage building conservation speciality, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, and a sustainable design specialist (LEED or Green Globes) for the provision of full architectural and engineering services for the PSB Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade.

The Prime Consultant will review all of the related documentation, recommend further examination as required, prepare the design and construction tender documents, and provide construction and contract administration including resident site services, cost, scheduling and project control and commissioning services required for this project.

Construction shall be implemented by a Construction Manager procured through a separate process to be undertaken by PWGSC.

3. Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive procurement process for a Prime Consultant for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project.

It is our professional opinion that the Prime Consultant RFP Process for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

4. Methodology

In accordance with the terms of our engagement, we familiarized ourselves with the relevant documents, observed the pre-solicitation, solicitation and post-solicitation periods, including the evaluation of proposals, identifying fairness-related matters to the Contracting Authority and verified that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate. Section 5 of this report identifies the specific activities and observations of the Fairness Monitor in respect of those activities.

5. Fairness Monitor activities and observations

5.1 Procurement planning/pre-issue stage

RFPSolutions Inc. was engaged to commence Fairness Monitoring activities beginning with the development of the RFP (Phases One and Two). A review of the drafts and final RFP documentation was conducted. This included a review of the:

• Supplementary Instructions to Proponents;
• Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria;
• Declarations and Certifications;
• Security Requirements; and,
• Terms, Conditions and Clauses of a Resulting Agreement.

The Fairness Monitor provided assurance as to the neutrality of the requirements, the objectivity of evaluation criteria and process; and the clarity of the documentation to support understandability by Proponents in preparing their Proposals, as well as to mitigate the potential for inconsistency or errors in the eventual application of evaluation criteria by the Evaluation Committee.

Observations

In reviewing the draft RFP documentation, no fairness issues were observed.

5.2 Request for proposals posting

The RFP, containing both Phase One and Two requirements, was issued to potential proponents via buyandsell.gc.ca on November 6th, 2014 with the final closing date for Phase One on January 9th, 2015 at 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time.

A total of thirty-one (31) questions were received during Phase One. Responses to the questions were provided to all potential proponents as amendments via buyandsell.gc.ca. A total of ten (10) amendments to the terms and conditions of the solicitation were issued in three Solicitation Amendment documents; each was reviewed by the Fairness Monitor.

Observations

The Fairness Monitor reviewed all questions and answers and amendments prior to issuance. No fairness issues were observed.

5.3 Request for proposals phase one close

The Fairness Monitor discussed the manner in which the proposal responses to the RFP were received and handled with the Contracting Authority.

Observations

Twelve (12) proposals were received and handled in accordance with the submission requirements and deadline stated in the RFP. No fairness issues were observed.

5.4 Request for proposals phase one evaluation instructions

Prior to the evaluation of the Phase One proposals, the Fairness Monitor reviewed the evaluation guidelines, including evaluator responsibilities, code of conduct, security, confidentiality and conflict of interest requirements, and evaluation methodology.  The Fairness Monitor also participated in a pre-evaluation workshop with the Evaluation Committee to address the principles of fairness in evaluating proposals.

The Fairness Monitor provided assurance as to the impartiality of evaluation methodology.

Observations

The Fairness Monitor reviewed the evaluation methodology and related requirements and observed no fairness considerations.

5.5 Request for proposals phase one mandatory requirement review

Following RFP closing, a review of mandatory requirements was undertaken by the Contracting Authority of the twelve (12) proposals received. All proposals were deemed to be responsive to these requirements as stated in the RFP and therefore eligible to proceed to technical evaluation.

The Fairness Monitor reviewed the results of the administrative review to assess them against the requirements in the RFP.

Observation

Based on the review of the assessment of proponents’ compliance with the administrative mandatory requirements, the Fairness Monitor observed no fairness considerations.

5.6 Request for proposals phase one evaluation and rating

The evaluation and rating of the Phase One proposals was conducted by evaluators from PWGSC on February 3, 2015.

The twelves (12) proposals were evaluated and received a rating. Each proponent received notification of their rating as well as instructions with respect to a site visit and closing date for Phase Two (March 24, 2015), via e-mail on February 6, 2015.

The Fairness Monitor was present and monitored the evaluation and rating consensus process. The Fairness Monitor provided assurance that it was undertaken consistent with the evaluation and rating process outlined in the RFP and that the results reflected the consensus of all evaluation board members.

Observation

The Fairness Monitor reviewed the results of the evaluation and rating and observed no fairness issues.

5.7 Request for proposals phase two

The Fairness Monitor attended the site visit at 47-59 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario on February 17, 2015. Six (6) proponents attended. The proponents attending the site visit were provided with a CD containing additional building drawings and background material.  In accordance with the Project Brief, which formed part of the RFP, all potential proponents had the option of obtaining the CD at the site visit or upon request to the Contracting Authority.

Two (2) addenda to the terms and conditions of the solicitation were issued directly to eligible proponents for Phase Two; each was reviewed by the Fairness Monitor.

Observation

No fairness considerations were identified with respect to the notifications to proponents, the addenda or the conduct of the site visit.

5.8 Request for proposals close

At close of Phase Two, three (3) proposals were received.

The Fairness Monitor discussed the manner in which the proposal responses to the RFP were received and handled with the Contracting Authority.

Observations

Three (3) proposals were received for Phase Two and handled in accordance with the deadline and requirements stated in the RFP. No fairness issues were observed.

5.9 Evaluation instructions

Prior to Phase Two proposal evaluations, the Fairness Monitor again reviewed the evaluation guidelines, including evaluator responsibilities, code of conduct, security, confidentiality and conflict of interest requirements, and evaluation methodology. The Fairness Monitor also participated in a pre-evaluation workshop with the Evaluation Committee to address the principles of fairness in evaluating proposals.

The Fairness Monitor provided assurance as to the impartiality of evaluation methodology.

Observations

The Fairness Monitor reviewed the evaluation methodology and related requirements and observed no fairness considerations.

5.10 Administrative review

Following RFP Phase Two closing, a review of administrative mandatory requirements was undertaken by the Contracting Authority of the three proposals received. All three proposals were deemed to be responsive to these requirements as stated in the RFP and therefore eligible to proceed to evaluation.

The Fairness Monitor reviewed the results of the administrative review to assess them against the requirements in the RFP.

Observation

Based on the Fairness Monitor’s review of the assessment of proponents’ compliance with the administrative mandatory requirements, the Fairness Monitor observed no fairness considerations.

5.11 Technical evaluation

The RFP required an overall minimum technical evaluation threshold (Phases One and Two combined) to be deemed a responsive proposal and proceed to the financial evaluation. Each of the Phase Two technical proposals was first individually reviewed and scored by each evaluator. The evaluators then convened at a consensus meeting to identify the technical score of each of those proposals.

The Fairness Monitor was present and monitored the Phase Two technical evaluation consensus process. The Fairness Monitor provided assurance that it was undertaken in a consistent fashion and that the results reflect the consensus of all evaluation board members.

All three (3) proposals achieved the minimum technical evaluation threshold to be deemed a responsive proposal and proceed to the financial evaluation.

Observation

The Fairness Monitor oversaw and reviewed the results of the technical evaluation and observed no fairness issues.

5.12 Price evaluation and proponent selection

In accordance with the RFP, a total evaluated price was provided by each of the RFP Phase Two proponents. The selection of the successful proponent was based on the responsive proposal with the highest total score that placed a weighting of 30% on the Phase One Rating, 60% on the Phase Two Technical Rating and 10% on the Price Rating.

The Contracting Authority performed due diligence and verified the pricing details on the form provided by the proponent. A financial evaluation summary sheet was prepared by the Contracting Authority and reviewed by the Fairness Monitor.

The Contracting Authority also performed due diligence in verifying the security requirements of the selected proponent. The verification of the security requirements was completed and a contract was awarded to the successful proponent on June 12, 2015.

Observation

The selection of the successful proponent was consistent with the provisions and methodology outlined in the RFP.

5.13 Communications and debriefing

This section will be completed as an Addendum to this report following completion of contract award and, as requested, debriefing of proponents.

6. Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number 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.

No.	Document	Document date/number
1	Request for Proposal – Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775-142668/A) – Phases 1 and 2	November 6, 2014
2	Solicitation Amendment No. 001 - Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775-142668/A) – Phase 1	November 25, 2014
3	Solicitation Amendment No. 002 - Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775-142668/A) – Phase 1	December 15, 2014
4	Solicitation Amendment No. 003 - Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775-142668/A) – Phase 1	December 23, 2014
5	Solicitation Amendment No. 001 – Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775_142668/B) – Phase 2	March 13, 2015
6	Solicitation Amendment No. 002 – Env. Rehab. & Base Bldg. Upgrade (EP775_142668/B) – Phase 2	March 17, 2015

Addendum to the final report
September 9, 2015

Addendum to the fairness monitor final report dated July 7, 2015 pertaining to the competitive procurement process for a Prime Consultant for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project, issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) as a result of Solicitation Number EP775-142668/A.

This Addendum to the fairness monitor final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase and includes contract award and an allowance of time during which proponents could pose questions or request a debriefing. The notification of contract award was posted on BuyandSell.ca on June 12, 2015. All unsuccessful proponents were subsequently advised by e-mail on June 12, 2015 that their proposals were not accepted for contract award and that they were entitled to a debriefing.

The successful proponent and eight unsuccessful proponents requested debriefings.  The debriefings of these proponents were conducted by the PWGSC Contracting Authority and Technical Authority between August 17, 2015 and September 4, 2015. The Fairness Monitor (FM) was present to observe that these debriefings were conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive procurement process for a Prime Consultant for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project.

It is our professional opinion that the Prime Consultant for the Postal Station B Envelope Rehabilitation and Base Building Upgrade Project solicitation process we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.