New bridge for the St. Lawrence corridor

Table of contents

• 1. Background and introduction
• 2. Project requirement
• 3. Attestation of assurance
• 4. Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology
• 5. Fairness Monitor specific activities and findings
• 6. Reference documents

1. Background and introduction

As Fairness Monitor, Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture {hereafter referred to as the Fairness Monitor (FM)} hereby submits its Fairness Monitor Contractor’s Interim Final Report pertaining to the competitive procurement process for the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Corridor (NBSLC) Project. This competitive procurement process was initiated by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for Infrastructure Canada (INFC) through Letter of Interest (LOI) Solicitation Number T8006140001/A, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Solicitation Number T8006140002/A and a Request for Proposals (RFP) Solicitation Number QA002-14-2501/A.

This Final Report covers our activities and findings concerning the LOI Phase, RFQ Phase, RFP Phase, evaluation of Technical and Financial Proposals, selection of a Preferred Proponent, and Commercial and Financial Close.

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.

2. Project requirement

The NBSLC is federally owned highway infrastructure linking the City of Montreal, Nuns’ Island and the South Shore meant to promote the safe and continuous flow of goods and people within the Canada-United States trade corridor. The primary feature of the NBSLC, the Champlain Bridge, is one of the busiest in Canada with traffic estimated at between 40 and 60 million vehicles per year, 11 million transit users per year and involving $20 billion of international trade per year. The Champlain Bridge has been assessed to be at the end of its safe life and must be replaced. The Nuns’ Island Bridge and the current federally owned part of A15 Highway are also at the end of their lives.

The result of the NBSLC Project will be an eight-lane bridge, including two reserved lanes for public transit, a six lane A15 Highway, a replacement bridge for Nun’s Island, installation of tolling infrastructure for the NBSL, and installations that support an intelligent transportation system for the Corridor.

The project is being procured using a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model providing for the building, design, financing, operating and maintenance of the Corridor with an in-service date of 2018 for the bridge and 2019 for the rest of the corridor. The PPP model provides construction and budget guarantees; an integrated holistic approach to design, construction and operating and maintenance of the infrastructure as well as assurance of infrastructure life cycle maintenance, regardless of future budget appropriations. Payments to the private sector contractor selected will consist of milestone payments during construction; two substantial completion payments when the infrastructure is ready to be put to use; and performance-based monthly service payments thereafter.

3. Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor (FM) hereby provides the unqualified assurance statement which follows concerning the competitive process monitored for the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Corridor (NBSLC) Project.

It is our professional opinion that the competitive process we observed up to and including Commercial and Financial Close was carried out 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.

4. Objectives of the Fairness Monitoring assignment and methodology

The overall objective was to provide independent observation of the procurement process and to submit fairness related comments to project officials, as early as possible, so that appropriate action could be taken to address the comments before fairness was impacted. The Director of Fairness Monitoring would be advised of any potential 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;
• reviewed the LOI as previously published;
• reviewed the RFQ and RFP solicitations in draft and final form;
• reviewed all addenda and clarifications to the solicitations as well as questions submitted by proponents and answers provided;
• observed Industry Days, Proponents’ Conferences, Commercially Confidential Meetings (CCMs) and Meetings with the qualified proponents;
• observed all site visits;
• observed or monitored by teleconference all meetings between individual proponents and Restricted Authorities;
• reviewed the procedures to be used for the evaluation of RFQ and RFP responses and the guidance provided to the evaluation teams;
• observed the consensus evaluation of responses to the RFQ and RFP to ensure that the specified evaluation and selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process;
• observed all meetings during which evaluation oversight committees reviewed the consensus results of the evaluations;
• monitored commercial and financial close activities to ensure that agreed adaptations to the Project Agreement including its Schedules were limited to those changes permitted by the RFP Section 8.2.b, and
• observed the debriefing of respondents to the RFQ and RFP. (The activity covering the RFP Phase will be reported on in an addendum to the Final Report after any debriefings.)

5. Fairness Monitor specific activities and findings

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to the pre-request for qualifications solicitation phase

On March 17, 2014 we reviewed the LOI (Document 1) and Amendments 1 and 2 (Documents 2 and 3) previously posted on Buy&Sell. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to the request for qualification

The RFQ was released to Buy&Sell on March 17, 2014.

During the period March 18, 2014 to March 23, 2014, we reviewed draft French and English versions of the RFQ (Document 4). During the period from March 21, 2014 to the closing of the RFQ, we reviewed draft and final versions of Amendments 1 to 8 (Documents 5-12) in both French and English. These amendments included Addenda 1 to 8 and Questions and Answers (Qs&As) 1 to 150. Based on our reviews we provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken by the project officials to address these comments.

On March 29, 2014 we reviewed the English and French scripts prepared for the Site Visit. On March 30, 2014 we observed the Information Session during which attendees were provided with a background briefing on the project and an overview of the RFQ process and submission requirements. On April 1, 2014 we observed the Site Visit and monitored the commentary in both languages. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

The RFQ closed on May 7, 2014.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to the evaluation of responses to the request for qualification

During the period March 20, 2014 to March 26, 2014, we reviewed the Evaluation Framework document and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken to address these comments.

On April 18, 2014 we reviewed the Evaluation Training Presentation Deck to be used during the training sessions for evaluators and provided fairness related comments. During the period April 19, 2014 to April 23, 2014, we reviewed a draft of the Evaluation Plan and on May 2, 2014 we reviewed an updated draft. Fairness related comments were provided to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken to address these comments on both the Evaluation Training Presentation Deck and the Evaluation Plan.

On May 5, 6, and 9, 2014, we observed the training sessions provided for evaluators. Three sessions were provided so that all evaluators could attend a session. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period April 30, 2014 to June 6, 2014, we reviewed planning information for reference checks for projects submitted in Responses to the RFQ and the need for specific checks arising from the evaluation of Responses. During the same period we also reviewed the proposed clarification process with the Contracting Authority. Fairness related comments were provided to the Contracting Authority concerning reference checks and the clarification process and appropriate action was taken by project officials. 

During the period May 13, 2014 to May 15, 2014, we reviewed recommendations of the Relationship Review and Conflict of Interest (RRCOI) Committee related to potential conflict of interest of the evaluators scheduled to participate in the evaluation. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials. 

During the period May 22, 2014 to June 20, 2014, we observed evaluation meetings of the six Evaluation Teams for the six Packages of Rated Evaluation Criteria at which consensus ratings and rationales for the consensus ratings based on the RFQ were agreed. Each of the six Evaluation Teams carried out their activities independent of the other Teams. Fairness related comments were provided during the evaluation process and appropriate action was taken by project officials. 

During the period June 6, 2014 to June 20 2014, we observed meetings of the Evaluation Review Committee (ERC) at which the ratings and written rationales of each Evaluation Team for each Rated Evaluation Criteria were reviewed and challenged to ensure consistency with the RFQ and that the written rationale for each rating could withstand scrutiny. Each Response was identified to the ERC only by an anonymous name. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action taken by project officials

On June 20, 2014 we also observed the ERC review of the spreadsheet tabulated results including the application of weights to all ratings to obtain scores for each Rated Evaluation Criterion for each Response and the compilation of final scores for each Response. Each Response was identified only by its anonymous name. The weights used were in accordance with the weights specified in the RFQ. Subsequently we were informed that the spreadsheet had been independently checked several times. The ERC agreed to recommend to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Review Committee that the three Responses with the highest total scores be invited to proceed to the RFP Phase subject to being determined to be in compliance with the PWGSC Integrity Provisions specified in the RFQ. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

 On June 23, 2014 we observed a meeting of the ADM Review Committee at which the results of the evaluation were presented. Each Response was identified only by its anonymous name. Written rationales for each rating for each Rated Criterion for each Response were also provided. The results and the rationales were the same as previously presented to and endorsed by the ERC. The ADM Review Committee agreed to recommend the evaluation results and the selection of the three highest scoring Responses, using the anonymous names, to the Deputy Minister Governance Committee. The three recommended Respondents would be subject to being determined to be in compliance with the PWGSC Integrity Provisions. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 29, 2014 we reviewed a PowerPoint Presentation and the Final Evaluation Report forwarded to members of the Deputy Minister Governance Committee that provided the results of the evaluation using the anonymous names and requested approval of the results. The results and report were identical to those agreed by the ERC and endorsed by the ADM Review Committee. On July 30, 2014 the results were approved by the Deputy Minister Governance Committee. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On June 30, 2014 we observed the limited release of the names of the Respondents and the three highest scoring Responses to the Integrity Provisions Review Team so that their review could be prioritized. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On July 8, 2014 we observed a meeting of the Integrated Project Management Team (IPMT) at which the initial results of the Integrity Provisions Review Team were tabled. The initial “integrity results” covered four of the Respondents including the three highest. Each of the four was determined to be in compliance with the Integrity Provisions. The remaining two Respondents were determined, subsequent to the meeting, to be compliant with the Integrity Provisions. 

Project officials notified the three successful Respondents by telephone on July 9, 2014. A script was used to ensure each was provided with the same information. During the period July 9, 2014 to July 18, 2014, we monitored emails to the three successful Respondents concerning the timely submission, in accordance with the RFQ, of a completed Submission Agreement, a Confidentiality Agreement and a bid security deposit, required as a condition to being selected as a Proponent to participate in the RFP Phase. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period August 19, 2014 to August 21, 2014, we observed three debriefings, one to each of the successful Respondents, and on September 5, 2014 we observed debriefings to each of the three unsuccessful Respondents. All of the debriefings were comprehensive, followed the same format and were consistent with best debriefing practice. A description of the evaluation process was provided followed by details of the evaluation results for the Respondent. The Respondent’s scores for each rated requirement were provided along with a rationale for the score detailing strengths and weaknesses of the response. Information provided was identical to the results observed during the evaluation.  All questions were answered other than those that involved other Respondents. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to the request for proposals

Request for proposals document background

The RFP and associated documents were made available through the Firmex Virtual Data Room and Online Document Sharing Platform. The “Reference documents” section at the end of this report provides an explanation of the use of the Firmex platform.

The RFP Volume 1 (referred to in this report as the RFP) and its updates were made available to the three Qualified Proponents on Firmex.  Proponents were advised through clarifications, the Q&A process and CCMs of planned significant changes to the RFP and associated documents. Each of the three updated versions of the RFP incorporated all changes from the previous version.

Similarly, Volume 2 of the RFP referred to in this report as the Project Agreement and its revised versions were released on Firmex. Each of the updated versions of the RFP incorporated all changes from the previous version. New schedules and revised schedules to the Project Agreement were released on Firmex as they became available with the Proponents being advised through Firmex. 

An “Early Works Agreement” was also a separate part of Volume 2 of the RFP covering Works proposed by the Preferred Proponent to be undertaken prior to formal commercial and financial close.

Firmex was also used to post numerous documents other than RFP Volumes 1 and 2 that Canada had access to and that Canada identified as relevant to the Project but which were not part of the RFP. This Background Information included but was not limited to maps, drawings, reports, test results, analyses, data, videos and photographs. Proponents were notified by Firmex whenever a new document was posted.

Request for proposals, addenda and clarifications

During the period July 10, 2014 to July 17, 2014, we reviewed draft versions of the RFP including the version to be posted on July 18, 2014 and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken by Project officials. 

Beginning on July 15, 2014 we also progressively reviewed versions of the Project Agreement and its Schedules which outlined the requirements of the Project and the required business terms and conditions.

On July 29, 2014 we reviewed the RFP as posted on Firmex on July 18, 2014 (Document 13). On July 31, 2014 we met with, and provided fairness related comments to PWGSC officials. We also reviewed drafts of the revised versions of the RFP that were released on October 31, 2014 (Document 16), December 5, 2014 (Document 17), and January 27, 2015 (Document 19) and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. After each version was released we reviewed the posted versions. All fairness related comments were addressed appropriately by Project officials.

Similarly, we reviewed the Project Agreement when it was initially posted on July 18, 2014 (Document 14) and revised versions of the Project Agreement when released on October 24, 2014 (Document 15), December 5, 2014 (Document 18) and January 27, 2015 (Document 20). Not all of the Schedules to the Project Agreement were available initially but progressively were made available as more information became available and comments received from the Proponents. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On or just prior to the dates indicated in the “Reference Document” section below, we reviewed draft and posted versions of Addenda 1 to 19 to the RFP (Documents 21 to 39).  Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. 

As they became available, we reviewed draft and posted versions of Clarifications to the RFP 1 to 26 (Documents 40-65). Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

Introductory meetings with proponents and initial site visits

On July 21, 2015 we reviewed the agenda for the Introductory Meeting with the three Qualified Proponents and on July 22, 2014 we observed the Introductory Meeting of the three Qualified Proponents and project officials. The Proponents were introduced to the Project Team and were provided with a comprehensive briefing on the Project, proposal submission requirements and procedures and protocols to be used during the RFP period. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On July 23, 2014 and July 24, 2014, we observed three visits guided by project officials to the NBSLC site, one for each of the three Proponents. We reviewed in advance the script that was used to describe site features. Fairness related comments were provided in advance to the project officials guiding the visits and appropriate action was taken. The same route was taken for each, the same site features identified, and the same script used. 

Relationship review committee

On July 31, 2014, September 5, 15, and 18, 2014, October 2, 2014, November 6, 2014, December 10, 2014 and January 26, 2015, we reviewed proposed decisions made by the Relationship Review and Conflict of Interest (RRCOI) Committee. These decisions involved matters such as Eligible Parties, Potential Conflict of Interest, Rules for Third Party Stakeholder Meetings, Eligibility Restrictions for the Owners Engineer, and the Procurement Plan for the Independent Engineer. Fairness related comments were provided to Contracting Authority officials and appropriate action was taken. 

Firmex questions and answers and background information

Beginning on July 31, 2014 until the end of the Enquiry Periods, we reviewed on Firmex all questions submitted by the Proponents and proposed answers prepared by the Project team. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

It should be noted that, while the end of the Enquiry Period for the Technical Proposals was January 14, 2015 and the end of the Enquiry Period for the Early Work Agreement and the Early Work Proposals was January 28, 2015, the Enquiry Period for the Financial Proposals did not close until March 15, 2015.  Enquiries concerning the Financial Proposal were received until the end of the Enquiry Period for Financial Proposal and were answered. 

We also monitored the frequent release of Background Information on Firmex. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Commercial confidential meetings

On August 1, 2014 we reviewed the rules and processes for Commercial Confidential Meetings (CCMs) which were to be presented to the Proponents at the first CCM for each. We also discussed the content of the presentation with the Contracting Authority prior to the first CCM. A consistent set of rules and processes based on the RFP were presented to each Proponent. Minor revisions to the rules and processes were made and agreed by the Proponents throughout the CCM period. For example, two additional CCMs were held with each Proponent. All CCMs were conducted similarly with most of the agenda for each controlled by the respective Proponent. We provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority and appropriate action was taken. 

On the dates provided in the table below we observed the nine (CCMs) held with each of the three Proponents. For each CCM, we reviewed in advance a spreadsheet with the questions submitted by the respective Proponent and proposed responses. When appropriate, we also observed post meetings of the project team held immediately following most CCMs. Fairness related comments were made and appropriate action was taken by Project officials.

Table Summary

The following table includes the dates of the nine Commercial Confidential Meetings (CCMs) held with each of the three Proponents. The table is divided into two columns, each row contains the CCM number followed by the dates.

CCM #	Dates
#1	August 5, 2014 to August 7, 2014
#2	August 19, 2014 to August 21, 2014
#3	September 2, 2014 to September 4, 2014
#4	September16, 2014 to September 18, 2014
#5	October 7, 2014 to October 9, 2014
#6	November 4, 2014 to November 6, 2014
#7	November 19, 2014 to November 20, 2014
#8	December 15, 2014 to December 17, 2014
#9	January 13, 2015 to January 15, 2015

Meetings with restricted authorities and additional site visits

The RFP included a list of “Restricted Authorities”. A “Restricted Authority” was an entity that has a direct interest in the NBSLC Project and with which the Proponents could only communicate at meetings organized by, and monitored by, the Project Office. Restricted Authorities included, for example, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, Ministère des Transport du Québec, Ville de Montréal, and Ville de Brossard. The RFP includes a complete list of Restricted Authorities. The RFP permitted each Proponent to request through the Project Office meetings with Restricted Authorities which were then arranged at a date and time suitable to the Parties. The Proponent also submitted an agenda of discussion items prior to the meeting. The representatives from the Restricted Authorities were briefed in advance on the rules for the meetings.

We observed or monitored by teleconference all meetings with Restricted Authorities. The table below provides the dates for the meetings with Restricted Authorities. Fairness related comments were made and appropriate action was taken by Project officials. 

Also, Proponents requested additional site visits through the Project Office. Some visit requests focused on specific site facilities or site features while others involved the complete site. Visits were arranged as requested with a representative of the Project Office accompanying the Proponent. The table below provides the dates for the additional site visits. We observed all site visits. Fairness related comments were made and appropriate action was taken by Project officials.

Table Summary

The following table includes the dates of the meetings with restricted authorities and additional site visits. The table is divided into eight columns, the first column lists the two types of meetings; meetings with restricted authorities and additional site visits. The seven following columns identify the dates of the meetings for the months of September 2014 to March 2015, inclusively. The asterisk indicates more than one meeting or site visit was held on that date.

Dates of meetings with restricted authorities and additional site visits

	September  2014	October  2014	November  2014	December  2014	January  2015	February  2015	March  2015
Meetings With Restricted Authorities	9, 11, 30Footnote *	1Footnote *, 2Footnote *, 3Footnote *	12Footnote *, 14Footnote *, 25	2, 8 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19	13, 16	5	10, 19Footnote *, 17Footnote *, 24Footnote *, 26
Additional Site Visits			12, 24	2	27Footnote *

Changes to proponents team

The RFP specified a process whereby Proponents could request a change in their Team from that identified in their RFQ Response or change of control of an entity identified in their RFQ response. A number of such requests were received during the RFP stage. In each case we reviewed the applications, any requests by the Project Team to the Proponent for additional information and the final response provided to the Proponent. Requests for additional information and final responses were reviewed in draft form before being forwarded to the Proponent by the Project Team. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Credit spread benchmark and base rate submissions

On March 9, 2015 we reviewed in draft form the comments that were to be provided to each Proponent in response to their Credit Spread Benchmark and Base Rate Submission received on March 2, 2015. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

During the period March 10, 2015 to March 30, 2015, we monitored teleconferences permitted by the RFP with each of the Proponents and their financial teams regarding revised Credit Spread Benchmark and Base Rate Submissions. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to the evaluation of proposals

Evaluation plan and relationship review and conflict of interest committee

On February 6, 2015 we reviewed a draft of the Evaluation Plan.  Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. On February 11, 2015 we reviewed a revised version. The Plan was comprehensive, consistent with the RFP and prescribed a rigorous process consistent with best evaluation practice. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Also on February 11, 2015 we reviewed the recommendations of the Relationship Review and Conflict of Interest Committee as a result of potential conflicts of interest of individual evaluators. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

Technical Proposals were received on February 11, 2015.

Technical experts’ review

On February 10, 2015 we observed the Kick-off Meeting for the Technical Experts at which the experts were given an overview of the project and their role. On February 11, 2015 we reviewed drafts of the Technical Experts Report templates and the process that would be followed to ensure completed reports were fact based and addressed the assigned questions before being provided to the Evaluation Teams. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action taken. 

During the period February 20, 2015 to March 5, 2015, we reviewed each of the Technical Experts Reports before the Reports were made available to the Evaluation Teams. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Technical evaluation kick-off and training

On February 11, 2015 we observed the Technical Evaluators’ Kick-off Meeting at which the evaluators were briefed on the Evaluation Plan and their role and responsibilities.  On the same date we reviewed versions of presentation deck on the RFP to be used the next day to familiarize evaluators with the project. We provided fairness related comments and appropriate action was taken. On February 12 and 13, 2015 we observed the presentation to the evaluators. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Technical proposal evaluation

On February 18, 2015 we observed the consensus evaluation of Mandatory Requirements carried out by the Technical Oversight Committee.  The Response of each Proponent for each Mandatory Requirement was discussed separately and a consensus result and supporting narrative agreed. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

During the periods February 24, 2015 to February 25, 2015 and March 9, 2015 to March 13, 2015, we observed all consensus evaluation meetings for all Technical Rated Requirements for each of the three Proponents. Each Response to each Rated Requirement was evaluated utilizing the RFP scoring criteria and scale and a consensus score and supporting narrative agreed. Best consensus meeting evaluation practices were followed at each meeting. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On March 16 and 17, 2015, we observed meetings of the Technical Oversight Committee during which the supporting narrative for each Technical Rated Requirement was reviewed to ensure the consensus narrative fully supported the consensus score. On March 20, 2015 we observed a meeting of the Evaluation Review Committee which challenged the Mandatory Requirement consensus results to ensure the results were justified. The Committee also challenged the scores and rationale of each Rated Requirement to ensure each score was fully substantiated by the written rationale. Later, we reviewed the final consensus score sheets and confirmed that the scores were the original consensus scores awarded by the Evaluation Teams. Fairness related comments were provided throughout and appropriate action was taken.

Financial proposal evaluation

On March 30, 2015 we reviewed the financial evaluation training presentation deck to be used the next day and on March 31, 2015 we monitored the training provided to the Financial Evaluation Team. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. 

Financial Proposals closed on April 1, 2015.

On April 7, 9, 10, 2015, we observed all consensus meetings of the Financial Evaluation Team during which both Mandatory Requirements and Rated Requirements of all of the Financial Proposals were evaluated. Best consensus meeting evaluation practices were followed.  Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken. 

On April 8 and 10, 2015, we observed meetings of the Evaluation Review Committee at which the results of the consensus evaluation of the Financial Proposals were reviewed and challenged to ensure the consensus results and written rationale were consistent with RFP requirements and that the written rationale for each rating could withstand scrutiny. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On April 10, 2015 we observed a meeting at the Deputy Minister level at which an update was provided on the situation of each of the three Proponents regarding the Integrity Provisions of the RFP. Project officials stated that each complied with the Provisions. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On April 14, 2014 we observed a meeting of the Deputy Minister Governance Committee at which the results of the evaluation were presented. Anonymous names were used for the Proponents. The Committee had been given the Evaluation Report containing scores and the narratives. The results of the evaluation were the same as observed during the evaluation, the Technical Oversight Committee and the Evaluation Review Committee. After asking questions and receiving answers, the Committee endorsed the anonymous results as presented. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On April 15, 2015, we observed the notifications by telephone to the Preferred Proponent and the two unsuccessful Proponents.

Fairness Monitor activities and findings related to commercial and financial close

On April 21, 2015 we observed the Kick-off Meeting between the Preferred Proponent and the Project Team and on April 23, 2015 we observed the Technical Kick-off Meeting. Also on April 23, 2015 we reviewed draft letters to be sent to the three proponents formally advising them of the selection of the Preferred Proponent. No fairness issues were identified.

Throughout the period until Commercial and Financial Close we monitored on an as required basis weekly Legal and Financial Coordination Meetings. We reviewed draft and final adaptions to the Project Agreement and its Schedules to ensure that all changes and additions were consistent with the provisions of the RFP particularly Section 8.2 “Final Agreements”. We also reviewed at a cursory or detailed level as necessary various other commercial and financial close documents, plans and lists such as but not limited to:

• Closing Agenda
• Closing Procedure Protocol
• Lenders Direct Agreement
• Rate Set Protocol
• Construction Contract Parts 1 and 2 and Attachments
• Construction Contractors Collateral Agreement
• Credit Agreement
• Software Escrow Agreement
• Outstanding Information, and
• Various Opinions and Certificates

No fairness deficiencies were identified.

6. Reference documents

The following documents listed in chronological order by type are referenced by number in this report. These documents are available through the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Corridor (NBSLC) project office.

All RFP documents were released to the three qualified Proponents through the Firmex Virtual Data Room and Online Document Sharing Platform. Firmex allowed designated officials of each of the Proponents to have access to all project documentation, to submit questions in confidence, to have access to their commercial-in-confidence questions and answers and have access to all non-commercial-in-confidence questions and answers. Each of the Proponents were notified by Firmex whenever a new document or background document was posted on Firmex.

Firmex also provided a means by which questions submitted by the Proponents, could be assigned to project officials, answers drafted and answers reviewed and approved by senior project officials. 

The dates provided below are the dates when the main body of the three versions of the RFP and Project Agreements were posted on Firmex. While most of the fourteen (14) RFP appendices were posted on Firmex on the same date as the parent RFP, other appendices were posted at other times when they became available with the Proponents being advised. The same approach applied to the 37 Schedules of the Project Agreement.

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	Date Posted on Buy&Sell or Firmex
1	Letter of Interest (LOI)	Released to Buy&Sell March 4, 2014
2	Amendment 1 to LOI	Released to Buy&Sell March 14, 2014
3	Amendment 2 to LOI	Released to Buy&Sell March 14, 2014
4	Request for Qualification (RFQ)	Released to Buy&Sell March 17, 2014
5	Amendment 1 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell March 25, 2014
6	Amendment 2 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell April 1, 2014
7	Amendment 3 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell April 10, 2014
8	Amendment 4 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell April 15, 2014
9	Amendment 5 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell April 23, 2014
10	Amendment 6 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell April 30, 2014
11	Amendment 7 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell May 5, 2014
12	Amendment 8 to RFQ	Released to Buy&Sell May 6, 2014
13	Request for Proposals Volume 1 (RFP) July 18, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex July 18, 2014
14	Project Agreement (RFP Volume 2) July 18, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex July 18, 2014
15	Project Agreement (RFP Volume 2) October 24, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex October 24, 2014
16	Request for Proposals Volume 1(RFP) October 31, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex October 31, 2014
17	Request for Proposals Volume 1 (RFP) December 5, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex December 5, 2014
18	Project Agreement (RFP Volume 2) December 5, 2014 Version	Posted on Firmex December 5, 2014
19	Request for Proposals Volume 1 (RFP) January 27, 2015 Version	Posted on Firmex January 27, 2015
20	Project Agreement (RFP Volume 2) January 27, 2015 Version	Posted on Firmex January 27, 2015
21	Addendum # 1 to RFP	Posted on Firmex August 18, 2014
22	Addendum # 2 to RFP	Posted on Firmex September 12, 2014
23	Addendum # 3 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 9, 2014
24	Addendum # 4 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 31, 2014
25	Addendum # 5 to RFP	Posted on Firmex November 21, 2014
26	Addendum # 6 to RFP	Posted on Firmex November 27, 2014
27	Addendum # 7 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 5, 2014
28	Addendum # 8 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 18, 2014
29	Addendum # 9 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 28, 2014
30	Addendum # 10 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 31, 2014
31	Addendum # 11 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 7, 2015
32	Addendum # 12 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 9, 2015
33	Addendum # 13 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 14, 2015
34	Addendum # 14 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 27, 2015
35	Addendum # 15 to RFP	Posted on Firmex February 6, 2015
36	Addendum # 16 to RFP	Posted on Firmex February 26, 2015
37	Addendum # 17 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 6, 2015
38	Addendum # 18 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 18, 2015
39	Addendum # 19 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 26, 2015
40	Clarification # 2 to RFP	Posted on Firmex August 22, 2014
41	Clarification # 1 to RFP	Posted August 26, 2014 (drafted but not finalized prior to Clarification # 2)
42	Clarification # 3 to RFP	Posted on Firmex August 29, 2014
43	Clarification # 4 to RFP	Posted on Firmex September 22, 2014
44	Clarification # 5 to RFP	Posted on Firmex September 29, 2014
45	Clarification # 6 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 10, 2014
46	Clarification # 7 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 11, 2014
47	Clarification # 8 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 15, 2014
48	Clarification # 9 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 24, 2014
49	Clarification # 10 to RFP	Posted on Firmex October 27, 2014
50	Clarification # 11 to RFP	Posted on Firmex November 17, 2014
51	Clarification # 12 to RFP	Posted on Firmex November 20, 2014
52	Clarification # 13 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 1, 2014
53	Clarification # 14 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 19, 2014
54	Clarification # 15 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 19, 2014
55	Clarification # 16 to RFP	Posted on Firmex December 22, 2014
56	Clarification # 17 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 7, 2015
57	Clarification # 18 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 17, 2015
58	Clarification # 19 to RFP	Posted on Firmex January 23, 2015
59	Clarification # 20 to RFP	Posted on Firmex February 5, 2015
60	Clarification # 21 to RFP	Posted on Firmex February 9, 2015
61	Clarification # 22 to RFP	Posted on Firmex February 23, 2015
62	Clarification # 23 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 5, 2015
63	Clarification # 24 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 13, 2015
64	Clarification # 25 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 20, 2015
65	Clarification # 26 to RFP	Posted on Firmex March 27, 2015