Procurement practice review of non-competitive contracts involving WE charity

July 2021

I. Background

1. The Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO) is a neutral and independent organization of the Government of Canada that works collaboratively with federal departments and Canadian businesses to promote fairness, openness and transparency in federal procurement.

2. The Procurement Ombudsman’s authority to conduct this review is set out in the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, and his mandate is further defined in the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations.

3. The Office of the Procurement Ombudsman:

• reviews the practices of federal departments for acquiring goods and services to assess their fairness, openness and transparency, and make appropriate recommendations to the relevant department;
• reviews complaints respecting the award of a contract for the acquisition of goods below $26,400 and services below $105,700, where the criteria of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement would otherwise apply;
• reviews complaints respecting the administration of a contract for the acquisition of goods or services, regardless of dollar value; and
• ensures that an alternative dispute resolution process is provided for federal contracts, regardless of dollar value, if the parties to the contract agree to participate.

4. OPO reviews the practices of federal departments for acquiring goods and services if there are reasonable grounds to do so taking into consideration the following factors:

• consistency with relevant Cabinet policies and procedures, with relevant multi-departmental policies and procedures and with policies and procedures related to a national security exemption;
• consistency with the Financial Administration Act and regulations made under it;
• the resources that would be required of that department to respond to the review;
• the observations or findings of any previous audits or assessments; and
• the time that has elapsed since OPO’s previous review of the practices of that department.

5. On July 2, 2020, the Procurement Ombudsman received a written request from 3 members of Parliament to review contracts awarded by federal departments to WE Charity. The request came 1 week after the federal government announced that WE Charity had been selected to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG). The CSSG had been developed as part of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan to provide payments to students who volunteered in their communities’ COVID-19 response. On July 3, 2020 the federal government and WE Charity announced they had mutually agreed that WE Charity would not administer the CSSG moving forward.

6. Following the assessment of documentation provided by several federal departments against the factors listed above (in paragraph 4), the Procurement Ombudsman confirmed that reasonable grounds existed to launch a review of contracts awarded to WE Charity and its affiliates.^{footnote 1} The Procurement Ombudsman cannot review funding agreements that are not “contracts" for the acquisition of goods and services because they do not fall within his legislative mandate. For this reason, funding agreements between federal departments and WE Charity including the funding agreement for the CSSG did not form part of this review.

7. OPO identified a total of 6 contracts that had been awarded by 4 federal departments to WE Charity since 2017. These contracts were proactively disclosed on the Open Government Portal. The Open Government Portal includes information from all federal organizations subject to the Treasury Board Contracting Policy (TBCP) for contracts valued at $10,000 and above. All 6 contracts with WE Charity were valued at $40,000 or below and all were awarded without competition.

8. One of the fundamental principles of federal contracting set forth in the Government Contracts Regulations and the TBCP is openness and the requirement to solicit bids from potential suppliers when awarding government contracts. There are, however, a limited number of exceptions where contracts can be awarded without soliciting bids through a competitive process. When departments choose a non-competitive contracting process, it must be for one of the specifically contemplated exceptions and its use must be fully justified and recorded on file.

II. Objective and scope

9. The objective of this review was to determine whether contracts awarded to WE Charity on a non-competitive basis, and associated amendments, were issued in a manner consistent with the Financial Administration Act, regulations made under it including the Government Contracts Regulations, relevant policies and procedures including the TBCP, and support the principles of fairness, openness and transparency.

10. The objective was supported by the following lines of enquiry (LOE):

• LOE 1: To determine whether non-competitive contracts and amendments were awarded in a manner consistent with applicable legislation, regulations, policies, procedures and guidance.
• LOE 2: To determine whether contract splitting occurred and whether controls were in place to prevent contract splitting and protect the integrity of the contracting process.

11. The scope of this review included 6 non-competitive procurement contracts awarded to WE Charity by the 4 federal departments listed below. These 6 include all contracts known by OPO to have been awarded to WE Charity by federal departments between January 1, 2017 and August 14, 2020.

• Canada School of Public Service (CSPS)
  • Speaker services for the event entitled “International Day of Persons with Disabilities”
• Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
  • WE Day California
  • International Development Week 2020
• Privy Council Office (PCO)
  • Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit
  • Leaders’ Debates Commission
• Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
  • National Child Day Celebrations: Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

Refer to Annex I for more information regarding these 6 contracts.

III. Results

LOE 1: To determine whether non-competitive contracts and amendments were awarded in a manner consistent with applicable legislation, regulations, policies, procedures and guidance.

12. For this LOE, OPO sought to verify that the justification and rationale for awarding contracts to WE Charity without soliciting bids was consistent with the Government Contracts Regulations and policy requirements, and that any amendments to those contracts were done appropriately. OPO also sought to confirm whether departments used mandatory Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) standing offers and supply arrangements when they were required to do so.

Consistency with Government Contracts Regulations

For all 6 contracts reviewed, OPO found the decision to award the contract without competition was consistent with the exceptions to the requirement to solicit bids set forth in the Government Contracts Regulations, however certain issues regarding fairness were identified.

13. As described in section 5 of the Government Contracts Regulations, “[b]efore any contract is entered into, the contracting authority shall solicit bids.” Bids are to be solicited through a competitive process by giving public notice of a call for bids or by inviting bids from suppliers on a suppliers’ list. Section 6 of the Government Contracts Regulations provides 4 exceptions that allow a contract to be awarded without a competitive process. A contracting authority may enter into a contract without soliciting bids where:

• there is a pressing emergency
• the estimated expenditure (i.e. cost) does not exceed certain dollar thresholds:
  • prior to June 10, 2019: $25,000 for goods and most services contracts
  • since June 10, 2019: $25,000 for goods contracts and $40,000 for most services contracts
• it would not be in the public interest to solicit bids
• only one person is capable of performing the work

14. The estimated expenditure or estimated cost for each of the 6 contracts reviewed did not exceed the $25,000 or $40,000 threshold that was in effect at the time of the procurement. For this reason, the use of non-competitive processes for awarding these contracts was consistent with the exception to the requirement to solicit bids under section 6(b) of the Government Contracts Regulations.

15. The Government Contracts Regulations do not state when cost estimates need to be established; however, the TBCP does stipulate when this should occur. Section 10.5.1 of the TBCP reads in part, “[r]equirements should be defined and specifications and estimates established before bids are solicited and contracts let, so that all prospective contractors are treated equally.”

16. None of the 6 contract files reviewed clearly showed that the estimated cost had been established before the department contacted WE Charity about its requirement.

17. The estimated cost of 4 of the 6 contracts was significantly below the threshold amount specified in section 6(b) of the Government Contracts Regulations, at the time of the procurement.

• For the CSPS contract—Speaker Services for the event entitled: International Day of Persons with Disabilities, it appeared the estimated cost of $11,300 including tax was established after the quote was received from WE Charity. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the GAC contract—WE Day California, it appeared the department did establish an estimated cost prior to contacting WE Charity to discuss the proposed contract. However, the amount of the estimate, $10,000 (USD) was not documented until after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the PCO contract for the Leaders’ Debates Commission advisory board, it appeared the estimated cost of $17,050.34 including tax was established after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the PHAC contract—National Child Day Celebrations: Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it appeared the estimated cost of $24,990 was established after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $40,000.

18. The estimated cost of the other 2 contracts was at or just below the $25,000 or $40,000 Government Contracts Regulations threshold for non-competitive contracting in effect at the time of the procurement.

• For the GAC contract—International Development Week 2020 learning event, it appeared that the estimated cost was established after GAC had contacted WE Charity for a proposal. Communication on the file showed that WE Charity had originally proposed a price that exceeded the $40,000 exception threshold in effect at the time; however, following a discussion with GAC, WE Charity removed a proposed activity and submitted a new proposal with the price reduced to $40,000. Documentation provided to OPO did not indicate why GAC requested this change.
• For the PCO contract—Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit, the estimated cost of $24,996 recorded in the contract file was equal to the price proposed by WE Charity and was marginally below the $25,000 exception limit in effect at the time.

19. Contacting a prospective supplier, sharing information about an upcoming requirement with that supplier, and requesting pricing information from that supplier before establishing and documenting the estimated cost of a contract, represents a threat to the fairness of the procurement process and should not be repeated. In the event the supplier’s proposed price exceeds the threshold for non-competitive contracts set forth in the Government Contracts Regulations,the department may be required to run a competitive process before awarding the contract. In this situation, not all prospective suppliers would be treated equally, as the supplier that was previously contacted for pricing information would have an unfair advantage over other potential suppliers because it received information about the requirement before anyone else. Alternatively, the department may decide to remove some of the goods or services it required to get the estimated cost below the threshold amount. This action would be a manipulation of the exception to competition permitted by the Government Contracts Regulations as the change would be made primarily for the purpose of avoiding competition. The practice of requesting pricing information prior to establishing and documenting the estimated price of a contract should be avoided to ensure the fairness of the procurement process.

Justification for non-competitive contracting

For all 6 contracts reviewed, OPO found the decision to award the contract without competition was justified and that appropriate documentation (i.e. recording) of the decision existed in the contract file. However, in 2 of the 6 contracts reviewed, internal departmental control documents were missing or incomplete.

20. Treasury Board rules require any use of the 4 exceptions to the requirement to solicit bids set forth in the Government Contracts Regulations to be fully justified and recorded on the contract file.

21. Under section 10.7.30 of the TBCP, “when the contracting authority awards a contract under the provision of one or more of the exceptions to the requirement to solicit bids in Section 6 of the Government Contracts Regulations, this decision should be recorded, together with the justification.” Additional direction comes from the Treasury Board Contracting Policy Notice 2007-4—Non-Competitive Contracting. It states “when departments choose a non-competitive procurement strategy, it must be fully justified and recorded.” Further, “[a]ny use of the [4] exceptions to competitive bidding should be fully justified by the contracting authority, with appropriate documentation placed on the contract file […].”

22. As discussed in the previous section, the estimated value of all 6 contracts was at or below the $25,000 or $40,000 threshold in effect at the time of the procurement. Despite the practice (noted above) of requesting proposed pricing prior to establishing and documenting an estimate on file, the department in each case did record the estimated value in the contract file prior to contract award, thereby meeting the justification requirement for non-competitive contracts set forth in the TBCP and Government Contracts Regulations.

23. In addition, notable good practices were observed from PHAC and CSPS. Beyond recording the estimated dollar value to justify a non-competitive procurement, both departments used templated “Sole Source Justification” documents to fully justify their decisions to award the contract without competition. The PHAC Sole Source Justification included a section describing why it was not cost-effective to solicit bids. The CSPS Sole Source Justification included answers to a set of questions to justify the decision to award the contract to the particular supplier and to explain why the proposed cost was considered fair and reasonable.

24. While the decision to award the contract without competition was appropriately justified for all 6 contracts reviewed, in 2 of those contracts internal departmental control documents were missing or incomplete. Both GAC and PCO have templated “Request for Service(s) Contract” documents in which they would normally provide a “sole source justification” to support their decision to award a contract without competition. For the GAC International Development Week 2020 contract, however, GAC used a Request for Services Contract document that was meant for a competitive process, and as such, it did not discuss the rationale or justification for awarding the contract without competition. For the PCO Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit contract, the Request for Service Contract identified “the estimated expenditure does not exceed $25,000” as the justification for awarding the contract without competition. The document, however, was missing information normally required by PCO including a detailed rationale to support the exception chosen and a rationale for selecting the contractor.

25. In response to questions from OPO regarding the International Development Week 2020 contract, GAC responded that it “was ultimately a sole source awarded contract and met not only [1] of the necessary sole source exceptions but actually [2]. The first exception was related to the dollar value, ‘the estimated expenditure does not exceed $40,000’. The second exception that it met was that this was the ‘only one person or firm capable of performing the contract.’” Although the justification to award this contract without competition was appropriate based on the dollar value exception, if GAC was relying on “only one person or firm capable of performing the contract” to justify awarding the contract without competition, a more in-depth explanation would have been required. The previously mentioned Treasury Board Contracting Policy Notice 2007-4—Non-Competitive Contracting requires departments to document responses to a set of questions to explain and justify their decision when this particular exception is invoked.

26. In response to questions from OPO regarding the Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit contract, PCO advised that their contracting officials would normally review the justification and rationale information, which is provided by the manager requesting the contract, however, that step was not performed due to tight time constraints within which it had to award the contract.

Contract Amendments

Only 1 of the 6 contracts reviewed was amended. OPO found the amendment for this 1 contract was not fully consistent with policy requirements.

27. A contract amendment is an agreed addition to, deletion from, correction or modification of a contract. The TBCP allows for amendments and section 12.9.1 notes that “contracts should not be amended unless such amendments are in the best interest of the government, because they save dollars or time, or because they facilitate the attainment of the primary objective of the contract.”

28. The 1 contract that was amended had been awarded by GAC for services associated with hosting a learning event during International Development Week 2020. The contract was amended after GAC received an invoice from WE Charity with an amount that didn’t align with the original contract.

29. The contract value was equal to the final WE Charity proposal, however there had been some confusion about pricing. Apparently, in a proposal not provided to OPO, WE Charity had quoted a price of $40,000 excluding taxes. Prior to awarding the contract, GAC requested a revised proposal showing that the invoiced cost would be $40,000 including taxes. WE Charity responded with a revised proposal with a price of $40,000 taxes included. This amount was reflected in the contract that showed the contract value as $35,398.23 plus applicable taxes (Harmonized sales tax (HST) for a total of $40,000 payable upon completion of the event and receipt of an invoice.

30. The WE Charity invoice provided to OPO, marked pro-forma, was for $40,000 plus $0.00 HST. An email from WE Charity to GAC accompanying the invoice stated it does not charge tax due to its status as a charity. WE Charity indicated it would send a final invoice upon confirmation from GAC that the information in the pro-forma invoice was correct.

31. Following receipt of the pro-forma invoice, GAC amended the contract by removing the HST and adding that amount to the fee for service component. This means that the total amount of the contract remained $40,000, and the value attributed to the work or service component of the contract increased by $4,601.77. However, there was no indication of a change in the scope of work provided to justify the increase from $35,398.23 to $40,000.

Standing Offers and Supply Arrangements for Mandatory Commodities

For 1 of the 6 contracts reviewed, the contracting department was required to use a mandatory PSPC supply arrangement to issue the contract to a pre-qualified supplier, rather than awarding it through a non-competitive process. For the remaining 5 contracts, the service acquired didn’t require the use of a mandatory standing offer or supply arrangement.

32. PSPC has established standing offers and supply arrangements to enable federal departments to award contracts to pre-qualified suppliers using a streamlined process. The use of standing offers and supply arrangements is mandatory for certain commodity groups listed in the TBCP. When considering a new contract, departments must verify whether a mandatory standing offer or supply arrangement exists that meets their requirements. If one does, the contracting department must use it. Exemptions to this rule are possible, but must be obtained from PSPC before awarding a contract.

33. For 3 of the 6 contracts reviewed, the service acquired didn’t fall within a mandatory commodity class that would have required the use of a PSPC standing offer or supply arrangement. For another 2 of the 6 contracts, the service acquired did fall within a mandatory commodity class, however the specific requirement could not be met by an existing PSPC standing offer or supply arrangement. Therefore, for 5 of the 6 contracts reviewed, the contracting departments were not required to use PSPC standing offers or supply arrangements.

34. The PCO Facilitation services during the Canada Youth Summit contract did fall within a commodity class for which the use of the PSPC ProServices supply arrangement was mandatory. Rather than using ProServices to select a pre-qualified supplier to provide facilitation services, PCO awarded the contract to WE Charity through a non-competitive process. This action was inconsistent with the principles of fairness and openness in government contracting as it removed a potential contracting opportunity from pre-qualified suppliers that had been identified through an open process advertised on the Government Electronic Tendering System. It also potentially resulted in the department paying more for the facilitation services due to the lack of competitive influence on the price charged. In response to questions from OPO, PCO confirmed it did not use the ProServices supply arrangement, and no exemption was sought from PSPC due to tight time constraints within which it had to award the contract.

LOE 2: To determine whether contract splitting occurred and whether controls were in place to prevent contract splitting and protect the integrity of the contracting process.

35. For this LOE, OPO sought to verify that contract splitting didn’t occur in the 6 contracts awarded to WE Charity and that adequate controls were in place to prevent contract splitting and, more broadly, to protect the integrity of the contracting process.

Contract Splitting

Contract splitting was not evident in any of the 6 contracts reviewed.

36. The TBCP defines contract splitting as “the practice of unnecessarily dividing an aggregate requirement into a number of smaller contracts, thereby avoiding controls on the duration of assignments or contract approval authorities.” This practice is explicitly forbidden under section 11.2.7 of the TBCP, wherein it states that “[c]ontracting authorities must not split contracts or contract amendments in order to avoid obtaining either the approval required by statute, the Treasury Board Contracts Directive or appropriate management approval within the department or agency.”

37. There was no evidence of contract splitting in any of the 6 contracts with WE Charity. Each contract was put in place to meet a unique requirement, meaning none of the 6 contracts formed part of an aggregate requirement that had been divided among 2 or more smaller contracts. Additionally, only 1 of the 6 contracts had been amended, and there was no evidence to suggest this was done to avoid competition or required approvals.

Controls to protect the integrity of the contracting process

For 4 of the 6 contracts reviewed, OPO found controls to be adequately designed and implemented. For the remaining 2 contracts, while contract splitting did not occur, there were gaps in the implementation of controls which could increase risks to the integrity of the contracting process.

38. Under section 5.1.1 of the TBCP, federal departments are responsible “to ensure that adequate control frameworks for due diligence and effective stewardship of public funds are in place and working.” Further, section 11.1.1 encourages departments to “establish and maintain a formal challenge mechanism for all contractual proposals […].” An effective control framework can prevent unwanted procurement practices from occurring, improve consistency with procurement policies and procedures, and encourage fair, open and transparent procurement practices.

39. For a control to be effective and adequately manage risk, it must be well designed and consistently implemented. For 4 of the 6 contracts reviewed, OPO found that the department had designed and implemented adequate controls to protect the integrity of the contracting process. For example:

• the CSPS and PHAC contract files included
  • detailed sole source (e.g. non-competitive contracting) justification documents
  • price certification demonstrating the contracts represented good value
  • integrity regime verification (PHAC)
  • executive-level signed approval (CSPS)
• the GAC contract file for its WE Day California contract included approval from the department’s Regional Contract Review Board that reviews non-competitive contracts over $10,000 proposed by missions
• the PCO contract file for its Leaders’ Debates Commission contract included detailed estimates for travel and accommodation costs and a fully completed sole source justification

40. For the other 2 contracts, there were gaps in the implementation of existing controls which could increase risks to the integrity of the contracting process. These were the PCO Facilitation services during the Canada Youth Summit contract and the GAC International Development Week 2020 contract.

41. For the PCO Facilitation services during the Canada Youth Summit contract, information provided to OPO indicated that although key controls existed and were documented, they were not consistently followed. As noted earlier in this report, there were control gaps related to the documentation of the rationale for a non-competitive contracting process, the rationale for selecting WE Charity as the contractor and the use of a mandatory supply arrangement. Additionally, as a standard practice, PCO would normally confirm that the fees proposed were reasonable and in line with fees charged for similar services. There was no evidence that the project authority checked to see whether the fees quoted by WE Charity were reasonable for the service provided, and PCO advised that they did not perform their usual validation procedure for this contract. According to PCO, the tight timeline to get this contract in place was the main cause for these control gaps.

42. For the GAC International Development Week 2020 contract, as noted earlier in the report, the Request for Service Contract template used by the project authority was intended for competitive contracts and did not include key information to justify a non-competitive process. There was no indication that GAC contracting officials questioned or challenged the improper use of this Request for Service Contract form. The challenge function performed by contracting officials is vital to the process because the GAC Departmental Contract Review Board does not review sole source contracts and amendments valued below $200,000 for contracts originating from GAC headquarters, as was the case for this contract.

43. GAC did not perform an assessment to determine if an original contract amount of $35,398.23 plus HST was reasonable for the requirement, or if the amended amount of $40,000 excluding HST, was reasonable. These assessments would have supported the TBCP requirement stating contracting authorities must ensure that the fees paid do not exceed the appropriate market rate for the service provided. Similar to the PCO Facilitation services during the Canada Youth Summit contract referenced above, internal GAC emails exchanged before the contract was issued indicated there was a sense of urgency to put the contract in place before a major departmental event. This urgency is believed to be a contributing factor to the observed control gaps.

IV. Conclusion

44. The Procurement Ombudsman reviewed the procurement practices of 4 federal departments to determine whether contracts awarded to WE Charity on a non-competitive basis and associated amendments were issued in a manner consistent with the Financial Administration Act, regulations made under it, relevant policies and procedures including the TBCP, and support the principles of fairness, openness and transparency.

45. OPO concluded that the decision to award a contract directly to WE Charity was consistent with the exceptions to the requirement to solicit bids in the Government Contracts Regulations for all 6 contracts reviewed. However issues regarding fairness were identified in the establishment of cost estimates. These estimates should have been established and documented on file prior to contacting WE Charity about the contracting opportunity and requesting pricing, in accordance with government policy. To protect the fairness of the procurement process, departments should not contact prospective suppliers, share information about an upcoming requirement and request pricing information through a non-competitive process prior to establishing an estimate for the acquisition of the goods or services.

46. Further, for all 6 contracts reviewed, OPO concluded that the decision to award the contract directly to WE Charity was justified, with appropriate documentation on the contract file, as per TBCP and Government Contracts Regulations requirements. Notwithstanding, for 2 of those contracts, departments did not fully respect internal departmental procedures to record the reasons (i.e. justification) for decisions on the contract file, potentially impacting the transparency of these procurement processes.

47. Only 1 of the 6 contracts awarded to WE Charity was amended. OPO concluded that this amendment was not associated with contract splitting, nor was there evidence of contract splitting in any of the other 5 contracts reviewed. However, regarding the amended contract, there was no evidence on file indicating the department performed the required assessment to determine if the increase in contract value was reasonable.

48. Finally, for 5 of the 6 contracts reviewed, there was no requirement for the contracting department to use a mandatory PSPC standing offer or supply arrangement. For the 6th contract, OPO concluded that the decision to award the contract directly to WE Charity (rather than to a pre-qualified supplier under an existing mandatory supply arrangement), without obtaining PSPC’s prior approval, was inconsistent with government policy and did not support the principles of fairness and openness.

V. Organizational responses

49. On May 31, 2021, the Procurement Ombudsman provided each department the opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed recommendations and the reasons for them within 30 working days. 2 responses acknowledging the report and recommendations were received within the 30 day period from PCO and CSPS. PHAC and GAC provided responses outside the 30 day period. Each department’s planned actions to address the Procurement Ombudsman’s recommendation are presented in Annex II.

VI. Acknowledgment

50. OPO wishes to express its appreciation to the management and staff of CSPS, GAC, PCO and PHAC for the assistance and cooperation extended to the reviewers during this assessment.

Alexander Jeglic
Procurement Ombudsman

Annex I: Contract details

Department: Canada School of Public Service

Speaker services for the event entitled “International Day of Persons with Disabilities”

Identification Number:

6020631

Contract Title:

Speaker services for the event entitled “International Day of Persons with Disabilities”

Vendor Name:

ME TO WE Leadership Inc.

Contract Date:

November 27, 2017

Total Contract Value:

$11,300.00

Department: Global Affairs Canada

WE Day California

Identification Number:

7371772

Contract Title:

WE Day California

Vendor Name:

WE Charity

Contract Date:

March 31, 2017

Total Contract Value:

$13,374.00 (CDN) ($10,000.00 USD)

International Development Week 2020

Identification Number:

7416498

Contract Title:

International Development Week 2020

Vendor Name:

WE Charity

Contract Date:

January 22, 2020

Total Contract Value:

$40,000.00

Department: Privy Council Office

Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit

Identification Number:

6026849

Contract Title:

Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit

Vendor Name:

WE Charity

Contract Date:

May 1, 2019

Total Contract Value:

$24,996.00

Leaders’ Debates Commission

Identification Number:

8040926

Contract Title:

Leaders’ Debates Commission

Vendor Name:

WE Charity

Contract Date:

March 20, 2019

Total Contract Value:

$17,050.34

Department: Public Health Agency of Canada

National Child Day Celebrations: Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

Identification Number:

4500402189

Contract Title:

National Child Day Celebrations: Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

Vendor Name:

WE Charity

Contract Date:

October 7, 2019

Total Contract Value:

$24,990.00

Annex II: Procurement practice review of non-competitive contracts involving WE Charity

Date modified:

2021-08-06