Integrated Soldier System project—Request for proposal 2

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
• Addendum to the request for proposal 2 final report, January 25, 2016

Background and introduction

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture was engaged as the Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the competitive procurement process for the Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP) Request for proposal 2 (RFP 2) for the Department of National Defence (DND), undertaken by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) through Solicitation Number W8476-112965/B.

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

A previous solicitation, Solicitation Number W8476-112965/A was cancelled because no compliant bids were received.

We hereby submit the final report covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor, commencing with the review of a draft Letter of Interest (LOI), drafts of RFP 2, through the Request for proposal (RFP) stage and the bid evaluation stage.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and specific activities and relevant findings.

Project requirement

The Government of Canada identified a requirement to select a company to provide the Department of National Defence, in support of the Army, with an Integrated Soldier System (ISS) which will allow for enhanced soldier capability through situational awareness, navigation and battle management.

Attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the procurement process to select a company to provide the Department of National Defence, in support of the Army, with an Integrated Soldier System (ISS) which will allow for enhanced soldier capability through situational awareness, navigation and battle management.

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

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 as follows: provide PSPC with independent observation of project procurement activities; provide fairness related comments to project officials as early as possible so that appropriate action could be taken to resolve the concerns before fairness was impacted; bring any potential fairness concerns to the attention of the Operational integrity sector if there is no timely resolution with project officials; and attest to the fairness of the procurement process, including its execution.

To accomplish the objective we undertook the following activities:

• became familiar with the project governance structure
• reviewed the draft RFP
• reviewed the RFP
• reviewed all amendments to the RFP including questions submitted by bidders and answers provided
• 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 evaluation and contractor selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process
• observed the debriefing of unsuccessful 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 during the request for proposal development phase

During the period February 4, 2013 to March 27, 2013, we reviewed the proposed procurement approach to be followed for RFP 2. This activity included the review of a draft Letter of Interest and a draft RFP that was released to MERX^{Footnote 1} on February 14, 2013, an Industry Day that took place on March 5, 2013, and additional drafts of the RFP. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken by project officials.

The RFP was released to MERX^{Footnote 1} on March 28, 2013.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the request for proposal phase

During the period March 29, 2013 to July 18, 2013, the FM Specialist reviewed the RFP as released to MERX^{Footnote 1} (Document 1), Questions and Answers (Qs and As) concerning the RFP, and Amendments 1 to 25 to the RFP (Documents 2 to 26), and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. All comments were addressed appropriately by project officials and as necessary were dealt with through the Qs and As process and amendments to the RFP.

We observed the Bidders Conference that took place on May 1, 2013. No fairness deficiencies were identified. The RFP closed on August 1, 2013.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the evaluation phase

During the period September 10, 2013 to November 8, 2013, we observed consensus evaluation meetings on the technical and managerial requirements and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. Appropriate action was taken by project officials.

On December 9, 2013 we reviewed the results of the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder. No fairness deficiencies were identified. On December 10, 2013 we were advised that all calculations concerning the selection of the recommended bidder had been reviewed and agreed to by a second PSPC official. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in the attached report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the ISSP Project Office.

No.	Document	Additional information
1	RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 March 28, 2013
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 April 12, 2013
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 April 22, 2013
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 April 24, 2013
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 April 25, 2013
6	Amendment 5 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 April 29, 2013
7	Amendment 6 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 May 3, 2013
8	Amendment 7 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 May 10, 2013
9	Amendment 8 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 May 22, 2013
10	Amendment 9 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 May 28, 2013
11	Amendment 10 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 4, 2013
12	Amendment 11 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 7, 2013
13	Amendment 12 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 7, 2013
14	Amendment 13 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 10, 2013
15	Amendment 14 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 12, 2013
16	Amendment 15 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 13, 2013
17	Amendment 16 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 14, 2013
18	Amendment 17 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 19, 2013
19	Amendment 18 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 20, 2013
20	Amendment 19 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 June 26, 2013
21	Amendment 20 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 2, 2013
22	Amendment 21 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 4, 2013
23	Amendment 22 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 11, 2013
24	Amendment 23 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 16, 3013
25	Amendment 24 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 16, 2013
26	Amendment 25 to RFP	Released to MERXFootnote 1 July 18, 2013

Addendum to the request for proposal 2 final report
January 25, 2016

Addendum to fairness monitor request for proposal 2 final report dated January 9, 2015 concerning the Integrated soldier system

This Addendum to the Fairness Monitor final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase including contract award and the debriefing of bidders.

The contract was awarded on June 23, 2015. On July 3, 2015 we reviewed the proposed debriefing regret letters to be sent to each of the four unsuccessful bidders, all of which were non-responsive. Each letter identified the mandatory requirements that were not met by the particular bidder. The letters were sent to the four unsuccessful bidders on July 27, 2015. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

After receiving the debriefing regret letters, three of the four unsuccessful bidders requested additional information concerning the evaluation of the bids and a face-to-face meeting.

On September 14, 2015, Canada provided further written information to two bidders on the results of the evaluation of their bids including information on the results of the User Acceptance Performance Evaluation (UAPE) element of the evaluation. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Canada had intended to provide the third bidder with additional information on the results of the evaluation of its bid. However prior to this occurring, we were advised on September 16, 2015 that, since the bidder had initiated litigation action concerning the evaluation of its bid, no further debriefing activity would take place until the litigation matters had been addressed.

Face-to-face meetings were held with two bidders on September 24, 2015 and a face-to- face meeting was held on October 23, 2015 with the bidder which had not originally requested a face-to-face meeting. In each case, prior to the meeting, we reviewed the information to be provided at each face-to-face meeting and we observed the meeting itself. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On January 19, 2016 we were advised that a complaint to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) from the bidder, which had earlier initiated litigation action, had been dismissed by the CITT.

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 information and face-to-face debriefings, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.