Current reviews

Reviews of departmental procurement practices

The Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO) is currently finalizing its plan for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year and the new reviews will be announced once launched.

Reviews of complaints

Review #1

Launch date: February 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department wrongfully deemed a proposed resource non-compliant on a mandatory criterion
  • The Department granted an extension and made changes to experience requirements shortly before bid closing to favour another supplier
  • Since the beginning of the process, the Department acted in a questionable manner compromising fairness and transparency

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #2

Launch date: March 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for consulting services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department did not provide sufficient details of the work activities to be performed, the deliverable(s), and the associated timelines
  • The Department did not disclose its evaluation methodology in the solicitation
  • The Department did not provide the Complainant with a reasonable timeframe within which to respond to the solicitation
  • The Complainant reserved resources to perform the work and subsequently experienced a business loss when it was not issued the contract
  • The Complainant was not properly advised and in a timely manner of the results of the solicitation process

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #3

Launch date: March 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for consulting services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department did not provide sufficient details of the work activities to be performed, the deliverable(s), and the associated timelines
  • The Department did not disclose its evaluation methodology in the solicitation
  • The Department did not provide the Complainant with a reasonable timeframe within which to respond to the solicitation
  • The Complainant reserved resources to perform the work and subsequently experienced a business loss when it was not issued the contract
  • The Complainant was not properly advised and in a timely manner of the results of the solicitation process

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #4

Launch date: March 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for consulting services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department did not provide sufficient details of the work activities to be performed, the deliverable(s), and the associated timelines
  • The Department did not disclose its evaluation methodology in the solicitation
  • The Department did not provide the Complainant with a reasonable timeframe within which to respond to the solicitation
  • The Complainant reserved resources to perform the work and subsequently experienced a business loss when it was not issued the contract
  • The Complainant was not properly advised and in a timely manner of the results of the solicitation process

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #5

Launch date: March 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department deviated from their departmental policies, directives, standards, and procedures resulting in contradictions and ambiguities in the solicitation
  • The Department did not award the contract in accordance with the basis of selection identified in the solicitation
  • The Department did not properly disclose the identity of the successful bidder

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #6

Launch date: March 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for services. The supplier alleged the following:

  • The Department deviated from their departmental policies, directives, standards, and procedures resulting in contradictions and ambiguities in the solicitation
  • The Department did not award the contract in accordance with the basis of selection identified in the solicitation
  • The Department did not properly disclose the identity of the successful bidder

This report is expected to be finalized in late summer 2017.

Review #7

Launch date: May 2017

A supplier filed a complaint regarding the award of a contract for services. The review will assess the following:

  • The Department’s solicitation was not clear regarding how the total evaluated price would be calculated.
  • The Department did not seek clarification from the Complainant regarding its financial proposal.

This report is expected to be finalized in early fall 2017.