Library and Archives Canada advocate architect services

On this page

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Attestation of assurance
• 3. Project requirement
• 4. Methodology
• 5. Reference documents
• 6. Addendum to final report, October 26, 2016

1. Introduction

Samson & Associates was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) on April 18, 2016 to observe the competitive selection process for advocate architect services, issued by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of Library and Archives Canada (LAC) as a result of Solicitation no. 5Z011-170038/A. Samson & Associates is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities. We had full access to all aspects of the procurement process and co-operation from all stakeholders.

We hereby submit the Final Report, covering the activities observed by the FM commencing with the issuance of the solicitation documents and continuing through to the conclusion of the Request for Proposal (RFP) evaluation phase.

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.

2. Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor hereby provides an unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive selection process for Library and Archives Canada advocate architect services commencing with the issuance of the solicitation documents and continuing through to the conclusion of the Request for Proposal evaluation phase.

It is our professional opinion that the activities we observed for the above initiative, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

3. Project requirement

Through the Gatineau 2 Preservation and Access Facility Project, LAC is preparing to construct a new archival preservation and access facility that supports its long-term archival collection and program requirements. The project plans to undertake the work through a Public-Private Partnership (or P3) model. This partnership will undertake the financing, design, construction, operating and maintenance of the new facility.

The project may also include an optional scope for the retrofit of certain areas and systems in the existing adjacent Preservation Centre as well as the provision of facility management services and maintenance to the Centre. Upon completion of the construction of Gatineau 2, it may also include the provision of Facility Management services to the new facility for up to a 30-year period.

PSPC intends to retain an individual consulting firm or joint venture to provide various architectural, engineering and related services to LAC in support of the P3 procurement and delivery. The advocate architect will support all four phases of the project:

• Phase 1 includes obtaining and reviewing the existing project documentation, developing an indicative design, performance specifications, and service specifications to be included in the P3 RFP
• Phase 2 involves assisting the client during the P3 procurement process, including attendance at proponent meetings, responding to proponent questions and participating in the proposal evaluations
• Phase 3 involves assisting LAC during the design and construction of the facility by the P3 contractor, including reviewing the P3 design documents and carrying out LAC’s monitoring and oversight responsibilities during construction
• Phase 4 is the post-construction phase which includes overseeing the contractor in the finalization of deficiencies, commissioning, closeout documents, and occupancy of the building by LAC

The Advocate Architect contract is expected to be for a period of almost four years, from approximately September 2016 to June 2020. If the optional services described later in this RFP are procured, the advocate architect’s mandate would extend to approximately March 2021.

4. Methodology

Samson & Associates was engaged as a FM to observe the competitive selection process for advocate advisory 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 bid solicitation activities (such as, reviewed the RFP, questions and answers, amendments issued and site visit), participated to the evaluation consensus meeting, identified fairness-related matters to the contracting authority and technical authority, and ensured that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate

4.1 Fairness monitor activities and observations: Request for proposals phase

A RFP (solicitation no. 5Z011-170038/A) was posted on the Government Electronic Tendering Service, buyandsell.gc.ca, on June 17, 2016. Proponents were requested to submit questions up to ten working days before bid closing. There were a total of seven questions submitted. Six amendments were issued with the last one being published on August 1, 2016. The RFP closed on August 17, 2016.

The FM observed the activities connected with the procurement process until the close of the RPF on August 17, 2016. The FM was present at the site visit held on June 17, 2016. The FM reviewed the RFP as well as the communications related to the questions received and the answers provided by the contracting authority, including the published amendments.

Observation

The RFP documents were written in a clear and understandable manner. Comments and questions submitted were responded to in an understandable fashion.

Fairness monitor summary of findings

It is the opinion of the FM that the RFP activities for the advocate architect services were conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner. In this context, fairness refers to decisions being made objectively, free from bias, favouritism or influence and conform to established rules.

4.1 Fairness monitor activities and observations: Evaluation phase

Two respondents submitted bids on the RFP closing date.

Compliance with the mandatory requirements was validated on August 18, 2016 by the Supply Specialist and reviewed by the Supply Team Leader. The two respondents were deemed to meet the mandatory requirements. The assessment was signed by both parties and subsequently reviewed by the FM.

An evaluation guide as well as a detailed evaluation plan was developed by the contracting authority. Both documents were reviewed by the FM prior to their distribution to the evaluators for consistency with the evaluation criteria as per the RFP.

The technical evaluation team was composed of four evaluators. A pre-evaluation meeting took place on August 21, 2016, which the FM attended, to review the evaluation documents noted above. Then the four evaluators individually evaluated the proposals.

A consensus evaluation meeting took place on August 26, 2016 with the four technical evaluators, the Supply Specialist, the Project Lead and the FM. Consensus discussions were open and a consensus was achieved on all criteria. The two respondents met the passing mark of 60 points. Once the technical evaluation was completed, the price proposals were opened in the presence of the FM.

One bid was set aside and received no further consideration because the price proposal was greater than twenty-five percent above the average price proposal of the responsive respondents as indicated in the RFP. The FM examined the consensus technical and financial score sheets to confirm the winning bidder.

An integrity check of the winning bidder was completed on August 30, 2016 which concluded the evaluation phase.

Observation

The evaluation plan and instructions were complete and aligned with the RFP terms. The scoring of the evaluation criteria was performed in strict adherence to the stated criteria. The pass marks were fully compliant with the RFP terms. Consensus discussions were open, all evaluators were present and a consensus was achieved on all criteria. One respondent was set aside because its financial bid exceeded the financial threshold that was set out in the RFP.

Fairness monitor summary of findings

It is the opinion of the FM that the evaluation activities for the advocate architect services were conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner. In this context, fairness refers to decisions bei made objectively, free from bias, favouritism or influence and conform to established rules.

5. Reference documents

The following procurement process documents are available through PSPC.

Procurement documents by publication date

No.	Documents	Date
1	Request for Proposal (5Z011-170038/A)	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on June 17, 2016
2	Amendment no. 1	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on June 29, 2016
3	Amendment no. 2	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on July 7, 2016
4	Amendment no. 3	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on July 20, 2016
5	Amendment no. 4	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on July 26, 2016
6	Amendment no. 5	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on July 27, 2016
7	Amendment no. 6	Published on buyandsell.gc.ca on August 1, 2016

6. Addendum to final report, October 26, 2016

Addendum to the Fairness Monitor (FM) Final Report dated September 7, 2016 with respect to the competitive selection process for advocate architect services issued by Public Services and Procurement Canada on behalf of Library and Archives Canada as a result of Solicitation no. 5Z011-170038/A.

This Addendum to the FM Final Report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase.

Fairness Monitor activities related to contract award and debriefings

Two respondents submitted bids in response to the Request for Proposal. Only one proposal was deemed compliant.

The successful bidder was advised of contract award on August 30, 2016.

A debriefing meeting was requested by the non-successful bidder. The meeting, attended by the Supply Specialist, the Chair of the Evaluation Board, the Senior Project Manager and the FM, was held on September 14, 2016 in Gatineau, Quebec.

Fairness monitor attestation of assurance

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the competitive selection process for the advocate architect services.

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