Procurement practice review of Parks Canada

July 2021

I. Background

1. The Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO) conducted a review of procurement practices at Parks Canada.

2. In accordance with paragraph 22.1(3)(a) of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Procurement Ombudsman has the authority to review the procurement practices of departments to assess their fairness, openness and transparency.

3. This review is based on issues and complaints brought to OPO’s attention by stakeholders, both in general and in regard to specific solicitations by various federal organizations. Based on this information, OPO has identified the 3 highest-risk procurement elements as: (1) the establishment of evaluation criteria and selection plans; (2) the bid solicitation process; and (3) the evaluation of bids and contract award. For the purposes of this review, these elements are defined as follows:

1. Evaluation criteria and selection plans—the development of mandatory and point-rated evaluation criteria, and the identification of the selection method to determine the successful bid;
2. Solicitation—the design and execution of the solicitation process, including the clarity and completeness of solicitation documents;
3. Evaluation of bids and contract award—the establishment of a process to ensure the consistent evaluation of bids in accordance with the planned approach, including an evaluation plan and instructions to evaluators, and the adequacy of documentation to support the selection of the successful bidder.

4. Parks Canada was selected for review as one of the top 20 federal departments/ agencies in terms of the value and volume of its annual procurement activity. OPO is conducting similar reviews of the other top 20 departments/agencies over a five-year period ending in 2022-23.

5. Parks Canada is mandated with the responsibility to ensure that Canada’s national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and related heritage areas are protected for current and future generations. As presented in its mandate and charter, Parks Canada exercises 4 key roles in the achievement of its mandate: the role of guardian of national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas; the role of guide to visitors to these national sites; the role of partner building on traditions of Canada’s Indigenous Peoples and diverse cultures; and the role of storyteller recounting Canada’s history.

6. Parks Canada’s National Contracting Services (NCS) group under the Procurement, Contracting & Contributions Branch has contracting authority for the majority of contracts over $25,000 within its delegated authority. Exceptions include, for example, goods and services for which Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) or Shared Services Canada (SSC) has the exclusive purchasing authority. NCS is divided into 3 teams: Western & Northern Canada, Eastern Canada & Nunavut, and National Real Property Contracting; each with staff working in procurement hubs in various cities across the country.

7. According to information provided by Parks Canada, it awarded 1,441 competitive contracts (excluding construction contracts and contracts managed by PSPC or SSC) worth $217M during OPO’s review period of January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019.

II. Objective and scope

8. This review was undertaken to determine whether Parks Canada’s procurement practices pertaining to evaluation criteria and selection plans, solicitation documents, and evaluation of bids and contract award, supported the principles of fairness, openness and transparency. To make this determination OPO examined whether Parks Canada’s procurement practices were consistent with Canada’s obligations under sections of applicable national and international trade agreements, the Financial Administration Act and regulations made under it, the Treasury Board Contracting Policy (TBCP), and, when present, departmental guidelines.

9. The following 3 lines of enquiry (LOE) were used to assess the highest-risk procurement elements identified in paragraph 3 above:

• LOE 1: Evaluation criteria and selection plans were established in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies;
• LOE 2: Solicitation documents and organizational practices during the bid solicitation period were consistent with applicable laws, regulations and policies;
• LOE 3: Evaluation of bids and contract award were conducted in accordance with the solicitation.

10. This report also includes a section on other observations identified by OPO through the analysis of the above LOEs.

11. OPO’s review consisted of an assessment of procurement files for contracts awarded by Parks Canada between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. This review did not include construction contracts, non-competitive contracts, acquisition card activity, contracts awarded through PSPC or SSC standing offers or procurement activity for which Parks Canada was not the contracting authority.

12. Based on contracting data provided by Parks Canada, OPO selected 40 competitive procurement files for assessment from a population of 339 contracts, after excluding the above‑mentioned categories. The judgmental sample was developed with consideration to factors including materiality and risk. The risk of selection bias was minimized through random selection of individual files meeting these pre-established factors.

13. The 40 files selected for review included 16 requests for quotations (RFQ), 16 requests for proposals (RFP), 2 RFPs using Parks Canada supply arrangements, and 6 RFPs using PSPC supply arrangements.

III. Results

14. Parks Canada’s procurement practices pertaining to evaluation criteria and selection plans, solicitation documents, and evaluation of bids and contract award were assessed against the 3 LOEs noted above. OPO made 4 recommendations to address the issues identified in the review, which are summarized in Annex I of this report. The recommendations are based on the analysis of information and documentation provided to OPO by Parks Canada during the course of the review.

Lines of enquiry 1: To determine whether evaluation criteria and selection plans were established in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies

15. Section 10.7.27 of the TBCP states that “[c]ompeting firms should be told the measurement criteria and the weighting assigned to them. …The courts have ruled that the factors and their weighting must be established beforehand and adhered to strictly. …Fairness to all prospective contractors and transparency in the award process are imperative”. Using clear and precise language to define the evaluation criteria and selection methodology helps bidders prepare a responsive bid and evaluators to apply the same criteria equally to all bidders.

16. This LOE applied to 23 files where evaluation criteria were developed and included in solicitation documentation. Of these, 14 contained both mandatory and point-rated evaluation criteria and 9 contained only mandatory criteria. All files were examined to determine if the evaluation criteria and selection methodologies: were clearly communicated in the solicitation; were not overly restrictive; and were aligned with the requirement. The method of allocating points to weighted criteria was also assessed to determine whether instructions were clearly communicated and reflected the relative importance of the criteria.

Mandatory criteria

In all 23 applicable solicitations reviewed, mandatory criteria were aligned with requirements and were not unnecessarily restrictive. In 10 files, however, the mandatory criteria were not communicated in a clear, precise or measurable manner. Details from OPO’s review of mandatory criteria are presented below.

17. A total of 23 solicitations reviewed by OPO contained mandatory criteria. In 13 of 23 solicitations, mandatory criteria were clear, precise and measurable. In the remaining 10 solicitations, mandatory criteria were not communicated in a clear, precise or measurable manner. Such evaluation criteria can undermine the transparency of the bid solicitation process and can cause bidders to submit non‑compliant or sub-optimal bids because the requirements are not well understood. Examples of unclear mandatory criteria included the following:

1. In 8 solicitations, mandatory criteria contained undefined or subjective wording. For example, one solicitation for the purchase of environmental site assessment services required each project team member to have “3 years of relevant experience in their respective role”, without further defining “relevant”. Another solicitation for the purchase of exhibit services to promote awareness of species at risk required bidders provide examples that “should be similar in scope, nature and complexity to the requirement”. Using subjective wording in mandatory criteria such as “should” and undefined terms such as “relevant” cannot be evaluated on a simple pass/fail basis and make it more difficult for bidders to understand how these criteria are to be met and evaluators to understand how these criteria are to be evaluated.
2. In 2 solicitations, mandatory criteria requiring training or equipment were included without specifying the extent of the training or minimum equipment required. For example, one solicitation required training in horticulture or equivalent but provided no additional information. As such, even 1 day of training would have met the criterion. In the same solicitation, bids also had to include an equipment list but did not specify the minimum equipment required (which was identified in the statement of work). As such, providing a list of equipment unrelated to the requirement would have met the criterion. Using such mandatory criteria that can be easily met should be avoided as they provide little indication about a bidder’s actual capability to perform the required tasks.

Point-rated criteria

In all 14 applicable solicitations reviewed, point-rated criteria were appropriate to the requirement and not unnecessarily restrictive. In 6 files, however, solicitations contained missing, incorrect or unclear information regarding point-rated criteria or associated rating scales. Details from OPO’s review of point-rated criteria are presented below.

18. A total of 14 solicitations reviewed by OPO contained point-rated criteria. In 6 files, solicitations contained incomplete or unclear information regarding point-rated criteria or associated rating scales.

19. Examples of missing, incorrect or unclear information regarding point-rated criteria or rating scales included the following:

1. In 2 solicitations, point-rated criteria contained sub-criteria with the number of points available for each. There were however no rating scales providing information as to how points would be awarded for each of these sub-criteria. For example, in a solicitation for the purchase of videography services, a point-rated criterion assessed “knowledge and understanding” and awarded points for:
   • Intent and scope; (10 points)
   • Expected results; and (5 points)
   • Roles and responsibilities of the various players. (5 points)

   Not providing details regarding how points will be awarded within the point envelopes specified may lead bidders to believe that either full points or no points would be awarded under each sub-criteria. In both cases, partial points were awarded by evaluators. Details regarding how points will be awarded by evaluators should be disclosed to bidders and should be clear to evaluators to support consistency in the scoring approach.

2. In 3 solicitations, undefined or unclear terms were used either in the point-rated criteria or rating scales, unnecessarily increasing the subjectivity of the criteria. For example, in a solicitation for the purchase of interpretation services, a point-rated criterion awarded points for years of “relevant experience” without defining what qualified as relevant experience. This criterion awarded further points for “similar and relevant” projects, again without defining the term. The rating scale for this criterion awarded between 1 and 10 points for “a few similar and relevant projects during the last 5 years” and between 11 and 20 points if “[t]his type of project constitutes the company’s main field of work” and if “[t]he company is reknowned[sic] for the projects it carries out in this area”.
3. In 1 solicitation, there was a disconnect between the rating scale for a point-rated criterion and the stated minimum pass mark of 10 points for the criterion out of a possible 20 points. The rating scale awarded between 0 and 6 points for an “Inadequate response”, between 7 and 10 points for an “Adequate response…”, etc. In this case, scoring fewer than 10 points would be “inadequate” as it would not meet the criterion’s minimum pass mark and would result in a bid being deemed non-responsive.

Selection methodology

In all 40 solicitations reviewed, the selection methodology was clear and aligned with requirements.

20. In all 40 solicitations reviewed, the selection methodology was clearly communicated and aligned with the requirements as described in the solicitation document. Common selection methodologies were used, mainly lowest priced responsive bid and highest responsive combined rating of technical merit and price.

21. Parks Canada’s NCS group has developed multiple guidance documents, including a Guide for the Bid Evaluation Process. This guide outlines the steps involved in the evaluation process and assists contracting personnel in guiding project authorities in the development of evaluation criteria and rating scales, common selection methods and the evaluation of bids. The Guide highlights certain items requiring special consideration including the appropriate use of verbs such as “must” and “should” in evaluation criteria, the need to have subjective criteria well-defined, and the development of detailed scoring grids. Given the existence and quality of this guidance, the issues observed indicate a lack of consistent implementation of the guidance rather than a need to develop it.

Lines of enquiry 2: To determine whether solicitation documents and organizational practices during the bid solicitation period were consistent with applicable laws, regulations and policies

22. The TBCP sets out detailed procedures to ensure that government contracting is carried out in a manner that enhances access, competition and fairness and results in best value. Section 10.7 of the TBCP includes the minimum requirements to be included in the solicitation document as well as mandatory elements related to the design and execution of the process.

23. Solicitation documents must contain work descriptions or specifications defined in terms of clear outputs or performance requirements. Solicitation documents must also contain the objectives to be attained and time frame for delivery, in the case of service contracts, and the assessment and award criteria. According to Parks Canada’s Procurement Desk Guide, solicitation documents must also include, at a minimum, a clear and concise statement of work (SOW), bid preparation instructions, evaluation and selection procedures, and certification requirements.

24. This LOE applied to all 40 files reviewed. For these files, solicitation documents (excluding evaluation criteria and selection plans) were assessed to determine whether they, among other things, contained a clear description of the requirement and instructions necessary to prepare a compliant bid. The review of organizational practices included an assessment of whether Parks Canada has established a framework to ensure that procurement practices are consistent with laws, regulations and policies and support fair, open and transparent procurements; whether the solicitation was open to the appropriate number of suppliers and for the required duration; and whether communications with suppliers supported the preparation of responsive bids.

Parks Canada has guidance in place to support fair, open and transparent procurements

25. Parks Canada’s Procurement, Contracting & Contributions Branch provides functional direction, advice and guidance on all aspects of procurement and has developed guidance to support fair, open and transparent procurements. This guidance includes a Procurement Desk Guide outlining considerations and roles & responsibilities of technical and contracting authorities throughout each phase of the procurement process, supported by a Guide for the Bid Evaluation Process, a Guide on Procurement File Documentation, procurement document checklists, and various other supporting tools and templates. Recent changes to the TBCP such as accessibility requirements and amendments to the Government Contracts Regulations are also reflected in Parks Canada guidance.

Solicitation process and documents

In all files reviewed, durations of solicitation periods were appropriate and solicitations were open to an appropriate number of suppliers. In 11 files however, solicitations included incomplete, incorrect or contradictory information. Details from OPO’s review of solicitation documents are presented below.

26. In 29 of 40 files, solicitations were clear and contained complete information and instructions to bidders. In the remaining 11 files, however, discrepancies were found regarding the description of requirements, instructions to bidders or other details provided in solicitations. Examples included the following:

1. In 1 solicitation, there was contradictory wording regarding security requirements. The first section of the solicitation stated security requirements were not applicable, but the certifications section required proof of valid security clearances submitted with bids. The certifications section also required bidders provide proof of Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System training completed within the last 6 months. The only bid received did not provide this information. It was clarified to OPO during the review that the reference to the security clearance and training requirement had been included in the solicitation in error. While these may have been errors, they were not corrected during the solicitation period and this resulted in a contract awarded to a non-compliant bidder. Such errors do not enable evaluators to disregard certifications required with bids as identified in the solicitation document. Doing so raises fairness issues as other suppliers may have bid if the erroneous certification requirements were not included in the solicitation.
2. In 1 solicitation, the requirement included the launch of a pontoon using a crane having the “adequate lifting capacity” [translated]. However, no specifications for the pontoon were provided (for example dimensions, weight), which would be required in order for a bidder to determine what an appropriate lifting capacity would be. In this case, the sole bidder appears to have been the incumbent.
3. In 5 solicitations, bid submission instructions contained incorrect or unclear information. This included, for example, requesting a technical bid when only a financial bid was required and not providing consistent bid submission instructions across all relevant sections of solicitations.
4. In 3 solicitations, applicable trade agreements were not accurately identified by either listing trade agreements that did not apply or by not listing those that did apply in the solicitation document. In the one case where applicable trade agreements were not all identified in the solicitation, the published tender notice and solicitation document did not identify the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO-AGP) as applicable trade agreements. This was not in compliance with the provisions requiring an indication that the procurement is covered by those trade agreements.
5. In 1 solicitation issued pursuant to a Parks Canada supply arrangement, there was no indication in the solicitation document or communications to suppliers that the solicitation was issued pursuant to a supply arrangement.

27. Ensuring all information is accurate and complete is important as it eliminates ambiguities, contradictions or other discrepancies in solicitation documents. This helps ensure suppliers have the information they need to prepare and submit responsive bids and helps reduce the number of questions from suppliers regarding such discrepancies. In turn, this reduces the effort required to respond to these questions during the solicitation period.

Communication with suppliers

In 28 of the 30 applicable solicitations reviewed, there was evidence of appropriate communication with suppliers during the solicitation period. Details of OPO’s review of communications with suppliers are presented below.

28. Section 2 of the TBCP states “government contracting shall be conducted in a manner that will stand the test of public scrutiny in matters of prudence and probity, facilitate access, encourage competition, and reflect fairness in the spending of public funds.” Section 12.3.1 of the TBCP also states that “procurement files shall be established and structured to facilitate management oversight with a complete audit trail that contains details related to relevant communications and decisions…”

29. These requirements apply to all aspects of the procurement process, including interactions with suppliers. For procurements subject to the Canada Free Trade Agreement and the WTO-AGP, section 12.3.2 of the TBCP requires contracting authorities ensure all communications with bidders are supported by complete documentation and records to demonstrate that the procurement process was carried out in accordance with the agreements. Any significant information given by a contracting authority to a supplier with respect to a particular procurement must also be given simultaneously to all other interested suppliers.

30. Parks Canada’s procurement guidance is aligned with the above as it clarifies that all potential bidders must receive the same information at the same time, and that procurement file documentation include records of communications with bidders including minutes of bidder conferences, letters to bidders, bidders’ questions and answers and all relevant emails and correspondence.

31. Of the 40 files reviewed, 30 contained communications (i.e. questions and answers) with suppliers during the solicitation period. In 28 of these 30 solicitations, communications with suppliers met requirements, which supports the preparation of responsive bids. In the remaining 2 solicitations, evidence of responses sent to all suppliers was not available or communications did not meet expectations. Details are provided below:

1. In 1 solicitation to acquire the services of a senior technical writer issued pursuant to the Task-Based Informatics Professional Services Supply Arrangement, file documentation did not show that all questions and answers were sent to all potential bidders that were invited to bid.
2. In 1 solicitation for the purchase of environmental restoration services, the numbering of questions and answers was not sequential throughout the amendments communicated (i.e. numbering restarted at 1 in each amendment), which may have caused confusion. Amendment 6 of the solicitation also reissued a section of the solicitation with amended mandatory and point-rated evaluation criteria. However, another section of the solicitation containing additional point-rated evaluation criteria was not modified and remained in the original version of the solicitation. Evidence suggests this may have been missed by bidders as one of the bids received did not include this section addressing the additional point-rated criteria.

32. Providing clear information to suppliers is critical to ensure responsive bids. Documenting all relevant communications on the procurement file helps demonstrate compliance with obligations laid out in the TBCP and mitigates the risk of not being able to defend against external challenges or oversight.

Lines of enquiry 3: To determine whether the evaluation of bids and contract award were conducted in accordance with the solicitation

33. In order to ensure the fairness and defensibility of evaluation processes, section 10.7.27 of the TBCP requires that evaluation criteria be adhered to strictly and applied equally to all bidders. Failure to ensure the consistent evaluation of proposals increases the risk that ambiguities in the selection process result in the contract being wrongly awarded. Inconsistent evaluations may also call into question the integrity of the procurement process.

34. Section 12.3.1 of the TBCP also requires that procurement files facilitate management oversight with a complete audit trail containing details related to relevant communications and decisions, including the identification of the involved officials and contracting approval authorities. The requirement to ensure adequate file documentation extends to the actions undertaken during the solicitation period as well as the evaluation of bids.

35. Parks Canada procurement guidance establishes a process for evaluating bids in its Guide for the Bid Evaluation Process, and related documentation requirements in its Guide on Procurement File Documentation. These procedures highlight the roles and responsibilities of the evaluation team and provide guidance for the individual and consensus evaluation of bids, seeking clarifications, the financial evaluation and selection of the winning bidder, negotiation procedures, notification of results and bid validity period.

36. Of the 40 competitive solicitation processes reviewed, 23 included a technical evaluation leading to contract award and 17 were awarded on the basis of price alone. The 23 files that included a technical evaluation were examined to determine whether a process had been established to ensure the consistent evaluation of bids and that the evaluation of bids had been carried out in accordance with the planned approach. All 40 files were examined to determine if they were adequately documented.

Bid evaluation

In the 23 applicable files reviewed, 13 files contained bids that were evaluated consistently and in accordance with the planned approach, and the files were adequately documented. In 10 files, however, OPO found irregularities or documentation issues in the evaluations.

37. OPO’s review found irregularities or documentation issues in the evaluations of 10 files. Examples are provided below:

1. In 1 solicitation for the purchase of grounds keeping services, a mandatory criterion required bidders provide project reference letters. A total of 6 suppliers submitted bids, none of which included the required reference letters. Evaluators removed this criterion and proceeded with evaluations. As this was included as a mandatory criterion, all bids were required to have been deemed non-responsive. This demonstrates the importance of limiting mandatory criteria to what is truly mandatory. Further, while waiving a requirement not met by any bidder after bid closing may seem fair for all bidders, it raises broader fairness issues as other suppliers may have bid if the waived requirement was not included in the solicitation. As stated in Parks Canada’s Guide for the Bid Evaluation Process, “Mandatory requirements must never be changed or relaxed in any way after bid closing.”
2. In 1 solicitation, selection was to occur on the basis of highest combined rating of technical merit and price using a ratio of 70% for technical merit and 30% for price. However, a ratio of 60% for technical merit and 40% for price was used in the evaluation report. In this case only 1 bid was received and evaluated and, as such, the ratio used did not impact the results of the process. However, had there been more than 1 responsive bid, the use of the incorrect ratio to determine the winning bidder could have led to a contract being awarded to the wrong supplier.
3. In 2 solicitations issued pursuant the ProServices Supply Arrangement, a bid was requested from a single supplier only. This is allowable under this method of supply for contracts valued below $40,000, which was the case in both solicitations. There was, however, no evidence of evaluation against the ProServices flexible grid in either case. When seeking bids from one supplier only, a bidder’s proposed resource must still be evaluated against the ProServices flexible grid applicable to the level of resource requested to ensure it meets the minimum education and experience requirements.
4. In 6 solicitations, file documentation did not fully support that evaluations were performed in accordance with the planned approach. All 6 files contained some record of evaluation or approval to proceed, such as an informal email or an award recommendation document. However, file documentation was incomplete with certain files not having a documented consensus evaluation or complete evaluations supporting that all evaluation criteria were in fact evaluated.

38. The procurement practices highlighted above demonstrate that Parks Canada, despite having a well-documented process, had not consistently implemented effective supervision and review mechanisms to ensure evaluations were carried out in accordance with the planned approach and appropriately documented to support the transparency of the award process.

Procurement documentation

Notwithstanding bid evaluation documentation observations noted above, Parks Canada’s procurement file documentation was generally complete. Details from OPO’s review of procurement files are presented below.

39. Parks Canada’s electronic procurement files were well organized in clearly marked folders by phase of the procurement process, which facilitated OPO’s review. Of the 40 files reviewed, 3 were found to contain missing documentation, as follows:

1. In 2 files, regret letters to unsuccessful bidders could not be located.
2. In 1 file, a copy of an amended contract signed by the supplier could not be located.

40. According to Parks Canada’s Guide for the Bid Evaluation Process, project authorities are responsible for ensuring that evaluation team members are not in a conflict of interest and obtaining written attestations to this effect. However, procurement file documentation guidance does not mention this requirement and conflict of interest attestations were found in only 1 of 40 files reviewed. Parks Canada should clarify this activity, which is a good practice, in its guidance documentation and ensure it is appropriately documented in procurement files.

IV. Simplification

41. OPO regularly hears from both Canadian businesses and federal officials who believe the contracting process is unnecessarily complex. In reviewing Parks Canada’s procurement practices, OPO sought to identify opportunities to alleviate unnecessary administrative burdens placed on bidders and federal procurement officials, and draw attention to good practices for simplifying the procurement process.

Standardization of procurement documents

42. Parks Canada generally uses federal government “standard” solicitation documents and processes. This contributes to simplification by improving consistency and uniformity across procurement processes. Care should be taken when drafting and revising solicitation documentation to ensure consistent alignment of all information provided in solicitations including bidder instructions, evaluation criteria, selection methodology, requirements and all related details.

Regret Letters

43. Regret letters are sent to unsuccessful bidders to inform them of the result of a solicitation process. Typically, these letters provide, at a minimum, the name of the winning bidder and the value of the contract. Parks Canada has developed regret letter templates based on those made available through PSPC’s Supply Manual. A good practice was identified where, in addition to providing the name of the winning bidder and value of the contract, Parks Canada’s regret letters also consistently included, as applicable, the score of the winning bid and the unsuccessful bidder’s score, breakdowns of the unsuccessful bidder’s score, and information on which mandatory criterion or minimum requirement was not met and why. More recent regret letters also provided information regarding available recourse mechanisms such as filing complaints with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and OPO. These good practices increase the transparency of the procurement process, likely reduce the number of debrief requests received, and may lead to higher-quality bids on the part of suppliers.

V. Other observations

Work performed in the absence of a signed contract

44. The issuance of a complete contract before work begins is important as it constitutes the formal acceptance by Canada of a supplier’s bid for the provision of the services described in a solicitation, as well as the formal acceptance by the supplier of the contract terms and conditions. If a proposed contractor will be paid for work performed before the effective date of a contract, clauses such as A9120C and C0210C from the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual should be used in contracts and a section entitled “Pre-contractual Work” should be included in the SOW to clearly describe all of the required work performed by the contractor before the effective date of the contract. If work has already been completed before the contract becomes effective, a confirming order must be obtained from legal counsel.

45. In 1 of the 40 files assessed during this review, work started before a contract was effective. In this case, regarding a requirement for the provision of janitorial services, the contractor emailed the contracting authority on April 24, 2019 noting that work had been underway since April 1 and it would now like to submit the first monthly invoice but did not have a contract number to reference. The next day, the contracting authority issued the contract, dated April 25, 2019, to the contractor. This contract did not authorize pre-contractual work. This exposes Parks Canada to significant risk if, for some reason, the contract could not have been awarded to this supplier or if the department were not able to approve payment for work done outside the term of the contract. It further exposes Parks Canada to risk of liability should the contractor suffer an injury during the performance of work for which a contract had not yet been effective. The proper procedure must always be followed and work should never be permitted in the absence of a signed contract.

VI. Conclusion

46. Parks Canada’s procurement practices pertaining to evaluation and selection plans, solicitation, and evaluation of bids and contract award were assessed for consistency with Canada’s obligations under sections of applicable national and international trade agreements, the Financial Administration Act and regulations made under it, the TBCP and departmental guidelines, and to determine if they supported the principles of fairness, openness and transparency.

47. Regarding LOE 1, OPO found that evaluation criteria and selection plans were established in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies mentioned above in the majority of procurements reviewed. Of note, in all applicable files reviewed, selection methodologies were clearly communicated, and evaluation criteria were aligned with requirements and were not unnecessarily restrictive. For the most part, mandatory and point-rated criteria were clearly communicated.

48. However, several observations regarding unclear evaluation criteria and rating scales for point-rated criteria were noted, which can lead to incorrect bids and improper evaluations, impacting the fairness of the procurement process.

49. Regarding LOE 2, OPO found that solicitation documents and actions taken by Parks Canada during the solicitation process were, in most cases, consistent with applicable rules. In all cases, durations of solicitation period were appropriate and solicitations were open to an appropriate number of suppliers, and in all but 2 files, there was evidence of appropriate communications with suppliers during the solicitation period. In most cases, solicitations contained clear and complete information and instructions for submitting bids. Parks Canada also has guidance in place to support fair, open and transparent procurements.

50. Information in certain solicitation documents was found to be incomplete, incorrect, or contradictory, which may impact a supplier’s ability to prepare and submit responsive bids.

51. Regarding LOE 3, OPO found that a majority of files reviewed were adequately documented and demonstrated evaluation of bids and contract award performed in accordance with the solicitation. The consistent evaluation of bids supports the integrity of the procurement process and reduces the risk that results of those processes could be called into question.

52. Observations regarding irregularities in bid evaluations or related to documentation were found. Certain evaluations were not consistently carried out in accordance with the planned approach or were not adequately documented. Maintaining well documented files enables departments to demonstrate fairness and transparency in their procurements and provides support for procurement decisions taken should those decisions be challenged.

53. In order to address issues identified, OPO made 4 recommendations. These recommendations can be found in Annex I of this report.

54. Through the analysis of this review’s LOEs, OPO also made one other observation regarding one file where work was performed in the absence of a signed contract, which should never be permitted.

VII. Organizational response

55. In accordance with section 5 of the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations, the Procurement Ombudsman provided Parks Canada with the opportunity to comment on the proposed recommendations in this review and the reasons for them. Parks Canada was further given the opportunity to comment on the review’s findings, and many of these comments were taken into consideration and integrated into the final version of the report.

56. Parks Canada stated the following: Parks Canada agrees with the observations and recommendations. Parks Canada has improved its procurement practices substantially since the time of the files reviewed. Some of the observations had already been identified as opportunities for improvement by Parks Canada’s procurement team and progress was underway on addressing them in an effort towards continuously improving our procurement practices.

VIII. Acknowledgment

57. OPO wishes to express its appreciation to the staff of Parks Canada’s NCS group for the assistance and cooperation extended to the reviewers during this assessment.

Alexander Jeglic
Procurement Ombudsman

Annex I: Procurement practice review of evaluation and selection plans, solicitation, and evaluation of bids and contract award at Parks Canada

Date modified:

2022-01-24