Defence Resource Management Information System: Integrated support services and SIGMA integrated support services—Request for proposal 1

On this page

• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
• 2. Request for proposals phase
• 3. Proposal evaluation phase
  • 3.1 Evaluator briefing
  • 3.2 Mandatory requirement evaluation
  • 3.3 Rated requirement evaluation
  • 3.4 Reference validation
  • 3.5 Financial evaluation
    • 3.5.1 Financial evaluation process
    • 3.5.2 Financial proposal rate substantiation
  • 3.6 Request for proposal cancellation
  • 3.7 Fairness monitor observations
• 4. Attestation of assurance
• 5. Reference documents
• 6. Addendum to final report, May 29, 2015

1. Introduction

PPI Consulting Limited (PPI) was engaged by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) as a Fairness Monitor (FM) Contractor to monitor the procurement and selection process for the follow on support for the Defence Resource Information Management System Integrated Support Services and SIGMA Integrated Support Services (DRMIS), and to provide assurance that this activity was conducted in a fair, open, and transparent manner. This Final Report covers the full solicitation.

PPI is an independent third party with respect to this activity. We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities

1.1. Background

PPI’s engagement began on October 16, 2012.

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and the Department of National Defence (DND) initially engaged industry to obtain feedback on the procurement for the provision of Integrated Support Services for DND’s Defence Resource Management Information System between December 2012 and January 2014. Due to the similar nature of the requirements, a decision was subsequently made to add the PSPC Finance and Administration Branch SIGMA requirement to the request for proposal (RFP) for the DND DRMIS project. As a result, a selection methodology was determined that allowed the requirements of both DND and PSPC Finance and Administration Branch to be fulfilled with the intention to issue two separate contracts to one supplier to fulfill both requirements.

2. Request for proposals phase

The RFP phase began with the issuance of the RFP by PSPC on June 11, 2014. The RFP phase closed on the amended bid closing date of August 26, 2014.

3. Proposal evaluation phase

The Proposal Evaluation Phase began when the RFP solicitation period closed on the amended bid closing date of August 26, 2014. PSPC received four (4) proposals by the closing date and time. The following activities were monitored by the Fairness Monitoring Team.

3.1. Evaluator briefing

The FM attended the Evaluator Briefing and distribution of evaluation documents. 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.

3.2. Mandatory requirement evaluation

The following process was undertaken to evaluate the mandatory requirements:

• Each evaluator conducted his/her own independent review of the mandatory requirements in his/her evaluator workbook
• Once the independent reviews were completed, the evaluators participated in consensus meetings to agree on a "Pass" or "Fail" for each mandatory requirement. The "Pass" or "Fail" and substantiating comments were recorded in the master record
• Evaluators recorded and initialled any changes agreed to during consensus in their individual workbooks
• The FM confirmed with each member of the evaluation team that they were in agreement with the consensus decisions
• All evaluators confirmed their agreement
• The evaluation team signed the consensus record

3.3. Rated requirement evaluation

The following process was undertaken to evaluate the rated requirements:

• Each evaluator conducted his/her own independent review and scoring of the rated requirements in his/her evaluator workbook
• Once the independent reviews were completed, the evaluators participated in consensus meetings to agree to the score to be assigned to each rated requirement. The scores and the rationale for the scores were recorded in the master record
• Evaluators recorded and initialled any changes agreed to during consensus in their individual workbooks
• The FM confirmed with each member of the evaluation team that they were in agreement with the consensus scores
• All evaluators confirmed their agreement
• The evaluation team signed the consensus record

3.4. Reference validation

The RFP provided an option for Canada to conduct reference validations, at Canada’s discretion. At the time that the decision was made to cancel the solicitation, a final decision concerning whether or not to conduct reference validations had not been made. Therefore, no reference validations were conducted.

3.5. Financial evaluation

3.5.1. Financial evaluation process

The following process was undertaken to evaluate the Financial Proposals:

• The financial evaluators worked together to confirm rates provided by Bidders and to construct the financial model to assess proposals
• Rate tables were copied directly from the RFP document and verified
• Level of Effort tables were copied directly from the RFP document and verified
• Rates were copied directly from each Bidder’s financial proposal and verified
• Evaluators performed the Financial Totals calculations and verified them
• The FM confirmed with each member of the financial evaluation team that they were in agreement with the financial evaluation results
• All evaluators confirmed their agreement
• The evaluation team signed the consensus record

3.5.2. Financial proposal rate substantiation

The RFP provided an option for Canada to require price support to substantiate proposed rates that were at least 20% lower than the median rate bid by all responsive bidders for the relevant resource category or categories. The RFP required that if Canada requested price support, it would be requested from all otherwise responsive bidders who had proposed a rate that was at least 20% lower than the median rate bid by all responsive bidders for the relevant resource category or categories.

This RFP clause – Part 4, section 5, Step 4: Evaluation of Financial Bids, subsection (c) Substantiation of Professional Services Rates – included mandatory requirements concerning the information to be provided by the Bidder. The clause also stated "If Canada determines that the information provided by the Bidder does not adequately substantiate the unreasonably low rates, the bid will be declared non-responsive".

Canada requested price support, as defined in this RFP clause, from all four Bidders. Submissions in response to Canada’s request were subsequently received from all four Bidders. However, during the evaluation of these submissions, and prior to its completion, Canada elected to exercise its option to cancel the RFP.

3.6. Request for proposal cancellation

The RFP provided an option for Canada to cancel the bid solicitation at any time. During the bid evaluation process, it became apparent to Canada that the technical requirements as defined did not adequately represent its operational needs and would require significant changes to the RFP. Accordingly, the bid solicitation was cancelled, and notifications to this effect were sent to all four Bidders.

3.7. Fairness monitor observations

The FM attended and provided fairness observations with respect to the proposal evaluation phase of the initiative. The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP. All Bidders were treated consistently and fairly. All observations and/or requests for clarification made by the FM were addressed by the client project team and/or by the contracting authority. Both the client project team and the contracting authority were responsive in providing clarification when requested by the FM. All fairness openness and transparency issues concerning the proposal evaluation phase were resolved with the client project team and/or the contracting authority.

4. Attestation of assurance

It is our professional opinion that the solicitation for the Defence Resource Management Information System Integrated Support Services and SIGMA Integrated Support Services (DRMIS), that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

5. Reference documents

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.	Reference Documents	Document dated
1.	RFP ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU000 Solicitation #:   W8474-126279/D	June 11, 2014
2.	Amendment 1 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU001	June 20, 2014
3.	Amendment 2 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU002	June 27, 2014
4.	Amendment 3 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU003	June 30, 2014
5.	Amendment 4 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU004	July 9, 2014
6.	Amendment 5 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU005	July 10, 2014
7.	Amendment 6 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU006	July 14, 2014
8.	Amendment 7 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU007	July 16, 2014
9.	Amendment 8 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU008	July 21, 2014
10.	Amendment 9 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU009	July 25, 2014
11.	Amendment 10 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU010	August 5, 2014
12.	Amendment 11 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU011	August 6, 2014
13.	Amendment 12 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU012	August 7, 2014
14.	Amendment 13 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU013	August 11, 2014
15.	Amendment 14 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU014	August 13, 2014
16.	Amendment 15 ABES.PROD.PW__XQ.B008.E27724.EBSU015	August 22, 2014

6. Addendum to final report, May 29, 2015

Addendum to fairness monitor final report for Defence Resource Management Information System project: May 28, 2015

This addendum to the fairness monitor final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase.

Bid solicitation cancellation, communications and debriefing

During the bid evaluation process, it became apparent to Canada that the technical requirements as defined did not adequately represent its operational needs and would require significant changes to the RFP. Accordingly, the bid solicitation was cancelled, and notifications to this effect were sent to all four Bidders.

Debriefings were requested by two bidders. Canada’s decision was that since the decision was made to cancel and retender prior to completing the evaluation process, debriefings were not allowed in accordance with article c. ii, Cancelled Solicitations, Chapter 7.40 - Debriefing and Feedback Session to Bidders/Offerors/Suppliers of the Supply Manual. On this basis, Canada informed all four Bidders that debriefings would not be provided.

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