Canadian Coast Guard helicopter renewal project full flight simulator

On this page

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Attestation of assurance
• 3. Project requirement
• 4. Fairness monitor engagement and observations
  • 4.1 Request for information process
    • 4.1.1 Activity monitored
    • 4.1.2 Fairness monitor specialist observations—Request for information process
  • 4.2 Request for proposals process
    • 4.2.1 Bid open period
    • 4.2.2 Technical bid evaluation
    • 4.2.3 Finanacial bids
    • 4.2.4 Fairness monitor specialist observations—Request for proposals process
• 5. Reference documents
• 6. Addendum to final report, March 8, 2016

1. Introduction

PPI Consulting Limited (PPI) was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) on August 22, 2012, to observe the procurement process related to the Canadian Coast Guard’s (CCG) acquisition of Light, Medium and Polar Helicopters and a Full Flight Simulator. This report relates to the procurement process for a Full Flight Simulator. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), now Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of the Canadian Coast Guard as a result of Solicitation # F7013-120014/I. PPI Consulting Limited is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities.

We hereby submit our Final Report, covering the activities of the Fairness Monitor, commencing with the Letter of Interest/Request for Information process, Solicitation No. F7013-120014/G issued on October 16, 2014 continuing through the Request for Proposals process, Solicitation No. F7013-120014/I issued on June 29, 2015, and subsequent evaluation.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, and relevant observations from the activities undertaken.

2. Attestation of assurance

It is our professional opinion that the Request for Proposals process for the Canadian Coast Guard’s procurement of a Full Flight Simulator, that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

3. Project requirement

The CCG provides services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of aids to navigation systems and services, marine communications and traffic management services, icebreaking and ice management services, and channel maintenance. CCG is also responsible for the marine component of the federal search and rescue program and responding to marine pollution.

CCG developed a Fleet Renewal Plan, a long term investment strategy to modernize its fleet of aging vessels and helicopters. The Fleet Renewal Plan included the acquisition of Light, Medium and Polar Helicopters and a Full Flight Simulator. Two previous procurement processes have resulted in the selection of the Bell 429 light lift helicopter and the Bell 412 EPI medium lift helicopter. The Simulator will provide a platform for training for the CCG Configuration A Bell 429 light-lift helicopter and the CCG Configuration A Bell 412 EPI medium-lift helicopter for the anticipated 30-year lifecycle of the new fleet.

The Full Flight Simulator is required to be sufficiently capable and configurable to conduct both initial and recurrent helicopter type training and proficiency checking, as well as relevant scenario based training in a realistic synthetic environment compatible with CCG helicopter operations.

4. Fairness monitor engagement and observations

PPI Consulting Limited was engaged as a Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the Request for Information (RFI) Process and Request for Proposals (RFP) process for the Canadian Coast Guard’s proposed procurement of a Full Flight Simulator 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 draft documents, observed activities up to the end of the Request for Proposals phase, identifying fairness related matters to the Contracting Authority and to the CCG Technical Authority and ensuring that responses and actions were reasonable and appropriate.

The following is a summary of the FM’s activities over the course of the engagement and related observations.

4.1 Request for information process

4.1.1 Activity monitored

During the RFI Phase, the FM Specialist attended the following meetings:

• three rounds of Commercially Confidential Meetings as follows:
  • round 1 – held November 12, 13 and 14, 2014 with five (5) interested Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers
  • round 2 – held January 28, 29, 30 and February 2, 2015 with four (4) interested Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers
  • round 3 – held April 29 and May 5, 2015 with two (2) interested Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers. A third manufacturer cancelled its previously arranged meeting
• site visits to three Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers, held February 19, 20 and 24, 2015
• project team meetings/discussions to review status, evaluation approach, issues resolution, evaluation criteria and specifications

During the RFI Phase, the FM Specialist was provided with the following documents for review:

• request for Letter of Interest
• draft Request for Proposal (RFP) documents posted March 31, 2015. The FM Specialist was provided with multiple iterations of the draft documents for review. The contracting authority satisfactorily clarified all questions the FM raised with respect to the technical specifications/process
• correspondence with industry e.g. containing clarifications to questions raised during the Commercially Confidential Meetings
• draft Evaluation Plan
• minutes of Commercially Confidential Meetings

The documents and activities completed in this phase complied with the fairness principles below:

• all potential proponents were provided with the same opportunity and the same information at the same time
• potential proponents were afforded the same opportunity to provide feedback with respect to the requirements and proposed procurement approach
• potential proponents’ feedback received due consideration by the client based on an assessment against the client’s operational and business requirements
• requests for further explanation or clarification were provided to all participants

4.1.2 Fairness monitor specialist observations—Request for information process

The FM Specialist reviewed the draft solicitation documents and attended three rounds of Commercially Confidential Meetings with interested Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers as well as on site visits to three of the interested manufacturers.

Any requests for clarification by the Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers during the Commercially Confidential Meetings were addressed by the CCG team and by the Contracting Authority either during the meetings or provided following the meetings. The same information was provided to all participants.

Any observations or request for clarification made by the FM Specialist were addressed by the CCG team and by the Contracting Authority.

The CCG team and the Contracting Authority were responsive in providing clarification when requested by the FM Specialist.

4.2 Request for proposals process

During the RFP Phase, the FM Specialist was provided with the following documents for review:

• draft and final RFP documents
• draft and final Evaluation Plan
• review of clarification questions and answers during bid open period
• correspondence with industry

4.2.1 Bid open period

The RFP for a Full Flight Simulator was issued as Solicitation No. F7013-120014/I, dated June 29, 2015 with an original closing date of August 31, 2015. During the Bid Open Period six Amendments were posted on the open bidding system responding to 37 questions from industry. In Amendment 006 dated September 25, 2015, the closing date was extended to October 7, 2015.

Two proposals were received by the submission closing date and time.

4.2.2 Technical bid evaluation

The FM Specialist attended the following meetings:

• evaluation meetings with three separate teams of evaluators held October 15, 21, 23, and November 9 and 12, 2015
• meeting with the PSPC Contracting Authority to review and verify price proposals held November 27, 2015

The following process was undertaken to evaluate the bids:

• each evaluator conducted their own independent review and scoring of the proposal in their evaluator workbook
• once the independent reviews were completed, the evaluators participated in meetings to agree the consensus assessment for both mandatory and rated requirements
  • technical mandatory requirements were reviewed for compliance with the information provided in both the compliance matrix and in the substantiating information in the proposal. A record of compliance or non-compliance was recorded in the master record along with the rationale
  • the scores for rated requirements and the rationale for the scores were recorded in the master record. The evaluators used a majority rule to determine a score when there was a variance in evaluator scores. The evaluator who was not in agreement recorded their score in their workbook along with a comment that they had agreed to the majority score. The majority score was the score 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 final consensus scores and rationale for non-compliant technical requirements
• all evaluators confirmed their agreement to the recorded score and that they believed both proponents had been treated equitably and fairly
• the evaluation team signed the consensus record

The FM’s review of documents and monitoring of activities in this phase considered the principles of fairness, openness and transparency. This included the following:

• Evaluation Plan is consistent with the published procurement documents
• Evaluation team members were chosen and confirmed prior to the receipt of proposals
• Evaluation training should be provided to all evaluators and observers. This should include informing evaluators of the following as a minimum:
  • identity of the proposals received and requesting evaluators to declare any conflict of interest
  • confidentiality protocols
  • document control
  • clarification process
  • overview of scoring workbooks and method for individual assessment
  • explanation of hidden criteria
  • explanation of fairness and the need for objectivity, consistency and equitable treatment of all proposals
  • guidance with respect to only assessing the information that is in the proposal – not information from previous contracts, personal knowledge, etc.
• The scoring criteria and assessment tools should be established prior to the receipt of proposals and should be consistent with the RFP, i.e. contain no hidden scoring criteria
• The submissions should be logged and recorded upon receipt, clearly identifying that these were submitted on time
• The pricing should be contained in a separate envelope (as applicable)
• The proposals complied with the mandatory submission requirements
• The process for establishing one score from a team of evaluators should be established prior to the receipt of proposals (consensus, majority, averaging, etc.)
• The same team of evaluators should evaluate all proposals (or parts thereof)
• The scoring assessment should be applied consistently and equitably by the evaluation team with no evidence of bias
• A secure location for the evaluation exercise should be established for the period of the evaluation
• Proposal documents should be physically secured within a secure location

At the conclusion of the technical evaluation one of the two proposals received was deemed noncompliant with multiple mandatory technical requirements. The second proposal was deemed compliant.

4.2.3 Financial bids

PSPC’s cost analyst reviewed and confirmed the compliant bidder’s financial capability in accordance with the process indicated in the RFP.

The proposal also met the Canadian Content certification requirements.

The FM met with the PSPC Contracting Authority to review the financial bid of the compliant proposal. The financial bid was complete and complied with the requirements of the RFP.

The FM had no fairness concerns related to the financial evaluation.

4.2.4 Fairness monitor specialist observations—Request for proposals process

The FM witnessed the technical bid evaluation sessions and confirms that the process was conducted appropriately in accordance with the process established in the RFP and in a fair, open and transparent manner.

The FM reviewed the financial proposal pricing and confirms that the process was conducted appropriately in accordance with the process established in the RFP and in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Any requests for clarification by the Full Flight Simulator Manufacturers during the bid clarification process were addressed by the CCG team and by the Contracting Authority and issued as Amendments. The same information was provided to all participants.

Any observations or request for clarification made by the FM Specialist were addressed by the CCG team and by the Contracting Authority.

The CCG team and the Contracting Authority were responsive in providing clarification when requested by the FM Specialist.

The evaluation teams were knowledgeable and diligent in their evaluation of proposals. Both proposals were evaluated consistently and fairly.

At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the one compliant proposal was identified as the successful proposal.

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.	Document	Document date/time
1	Helicopter Project (DFO) Letter of Interest/Request for Information F7013-120014/A	August 20, 2012
2	Helicopter Project (DFO) Notice of Proposed Procurement F7013-120014/B	December 13, 2012
3	Helicopter Project (DFO) Notice of Proposed Procurement F7013-120014/C	April 3, 2013
4	Helicopter Project (DFO) Letter of Interest/Request for Information F7013-120014/D	April 22, 2013
5	Helicopter Project (DFO) Notice of Proposed Procurement F7013-120014/E	June 6, 2013
6	Helicopter Project (DFO) Notice of Proposed Procurement F7013-120014/F	February 24, 2014
7	Helicopter Project (DFO) Letter of Interest F7013-120014/G Letter of Interest	October 16, 2014
8	Helicopter Project (DFO) Letter of Interest F7013-120014/G Letter of Interest Amendment 001	November 14, 2014
9	Notice of Proposed Procurement (F7013-120014/H)	March 31, 2015
10	Notice of Proposed Procurement (F7013-120014/H) Amendment 001	April 10, 2015
11	Request for Proposals, Solicitation # F7013-120014/I, closing date 31 August 2015 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU000	June 29, 2015
12	Amendment 001 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	July 13, 2015
13	Amendment 002 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	August 14, 2015
14	Amendment 003 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	August 21, 2015
15	Amendment 004 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	September 4, 2015
16	Amendment 005 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	September 11, 2015
17	Amendment 006 ABES.PROD.PW_CAG.B003.E25220.EBSU001	September 28, 2015

6. Addendum to the final report
March 8, 2016

Addendum to the fairness monitor final report dated January 7, 2016 for the Canadian Coast Guard’s full flight simulator for its helicopter renewal project.

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

Contract award, communications and debriefing

The contract was awarded on February 2, 2016. A letter was sent to the unsuccessful bidder on February 4, 2016. Both bidders requested a debriefing which was provided to the successful bidder on February 18, 2016 and to the unsuccessful bidder on March 4, 2016.

The FM was provided with copies of correspondence and debriefing documentation and attended both debriefings. The process conducted conformed to the requirements of the RFP and both bidders were treated consistently and fairly.

The FM hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the notification of award, communications and debriefings of each proponent.

It is our professional opinion that the procurement process to select a Full Flight Simulator and Related Services that we observed was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.