Administration of Contracts for Interpretation Services (1/4)

December 2025

Mail:

Office of the Procurement Ombud
400-410 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario (ON) K1R 1B7.

Toll-free:

1‑866‑734‑5169

Teletypewriter:

1‑800‑926‑9105

Email:

ombudsman@opo-boa.gc.ca

Stay connected:

• X
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

Catalogue number:

P114-24/1-2026E-PDF

International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN):

978-0-660-97655-6

Summary

Please note that the report is available in a PDF or paper format if needed.

The complaint

1. Between June and August 2025, the Office of the Procurement Ombud (OPO) received written complaints from 4 Canadian suppliers (the complainants) regarding the administration of their separate contracts awarded by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC / the Department). Each contract was for the provision of “Parliamentary and Conference Interpretation Services” for PSPC’s Translation Bureau.
2. The 4 complainants had some issues in common and some that were unique to their respective complaints. To adequately address the issues raised by each complainant, OPO will address each complaint in a separate report. On June 19, 2025 OPO received the first of the 4 complaints from a Canadian supplier (the Complainant) that resulted in this report. The Complainant raised issues concerning the manner in which the Department administered the contract, and the transparency of those contract administration decisions.
3. The complaint raised the following issues:
   1. Was the Department transparent about how the work was attributed to suppliers?
   2. Did the Department attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract?
   3. Did the Department act in bad faith?
4. On June 20, 2025, OPO confirmed the complaint met the requirements of the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations (the Regulations) and it was considered filed.

Mandate

5. This review of complaint was conducted under the authority of paragraph 22.1(3)(c) of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and sections 15 to 22 inclusive of the Regulations.
6. Pursuant to subsection 18(2) of the Regulations, the Procurement Ombud requested the Complainant and PSPC provide all documents and information necessary for the review. PSPC was also asked to provide a written response to the issues identified in the complaint.
7. PSPC provided OPO with a response to the issues highlighted in the complaint, as well as supporting documents. In addition to the complaint, the Complainant provided OPO with documents and written communications exchanged with PSPC associated with the administration of the contract. The failure by either PSPC or the Complainant to disclose any relevant records or information could impact the findings of this report.
8. With respect to the review of a complaint concerning the administration of a contract, it should be noted that Section 21 of the Regulations specifies the Procurement Ombud may not make recommendations:
   • altering the terms and conditions of a contract; or
   • providing a remedy other than as specified in the contract.

Chronology of events

9. On September 21, 2023, PSPC issued contracts to multiple suppliers for the provision of interpretation services. Each contract included the same terms and conditions including the attribution of work clause.
10. On April 25, 2025, the Complainant and 2 other interpreters who were also contract holders sent a letter to the Department by email expressing concern about what seemed to be a significant deviation from the contract terms. Specifically the letter focussed on their concerns with how work was attributed.
11. On April 28, 2025, PSPC acknowledged receipt of the letter and stated that a follow-up would be provided shortly.
12. On May 12, 2025, one of the other interpreters followed-up with PSPC by email asking when they could expect a response.
13. On May 21, 2025, PSPC acknowledged receipt of the email, and noted that they are still reviewing the file.
14. On June 9, 2025, one of the other interpreters again followed-up by email.
15. On June 17, 2025, PSPC replied by email to all 3 interpreters who had sent the letter on April 25, 2025, advising that they would each receive an individual response.
16. Also on June 17, 2025, PSPC replied by email individually to each of the 3 interpreters.
17. Between June and August 2025, OPO received 4 written complaints related to the administration of contracts issued by PSPC for Translation Bureau interpretation services.

Analysis of issues and findings

Issue 1: Was the Department transparent about how the work was attributed to suppliers?

18. The Complainant questioned the transparency around the attribution of work. Specifically that the Complainant had to speak with other interpreters who received work and request copies of their schedules to determine who was attributed work for a given day.

“[PSPC] lacked transparency during the contract renewal last spring…. This is again the case with the actions described in our letter…and in the two months following that letter. It was not our responsibility to discover [PSPC’s] breach of contract by begging colleagues for a copy of the program who were fortunate enough (or paid the price) to have their names included. We have no other way than daily schedules to verify that work assignments are being managed correctly. The [PSPC] has consistently refused to provide these schedules, which would allow us to know how the contract is administered to our representatives [the International Association of Conference Interpreters] (AIIC), as has always been the case.” (English translation).

19. In its response to OPO, the Department wrote:

“[PSPC] denies the accusation of intentional lack of transparency. In its June 17, 2025, email, [PSPC] recognized its mistake and took steps to address the situation. Note that daily programs are working documents shared exclusively with contractors assigned to a given event, and there is no intent to share these programs with all qualified contractors.”

20. The Directive on the Management of Procurement states:

Under section 4.3.1, contracting authorities are responsible for conducting procurements on behalf of the department or agency, and establishing contracts and contractual arrangements based on sound procurement principles, including fairness, openness and transparency to obtain best value.

Under section 4.10.1, contracting authorities are responsible for ensuring that accurate and comprehensive procurement records applicable to the contract file are created and maintained to facilitate management oversight and audit.

21. The contract’s terms and conditions are silent on the disclosure and transparency of decisions relating to the attribution of work. What this means in practice, is that the Department has no contractual obligation to disclose documents related to the attribution of work, nor documents that are shared exclusively with contractors assigned to a given event.
22. When a contract is silent on disclosure and transparency requirements, the Department could still choose to make decisions that support the overall fairness, openness, and transparency of the procurement, without jeopardising the terms and conditions of a contract. For example:
    1. Apply principles of transparency and fairness, especially when decisions affect multiple suppliers or stakeholders. This helps build trust and accountability
    2. Document decisions clearly to ensure consistency and allow for internal review or future reference
    3. Establish internal guidelines or best practices to fill gaps in the contract, ensuring decisions are made consistently and fairly throughout the life cycle of the contract
23. Documentation provided to OPO by the Department does not demonstrate how the work was attributed. Thus, it fails to demonstrate that accurate and comprehensive procurement records respecting the allocation of work were created and maintained to facilitate management oversight and audit of this contract.

Finding - Issue 1

24. The Procurement Ombud found that there were no terms and conditions in the contract that required the Department to disclose how work was attributed to interpreters, nor was there a requirement to share working documents or daily schedules with those suppliers not assigned to a given event.
25. The Procurement Ombud also notes that, although the Department was not obligated to disclose to the interpreters how work was attributed, they did have obligations under the Directive on the Management of Procurement to ensure accurate and comprehensive procurement records, including a record of decisions taken, are created and maintained on the file. While this information did not have to be shared with the Complainant, it was necessary from an audit perspective in case administration issues arise. Despite the Procurement Ombud’s request that PSPC provide OPO with all records related to the contract, there is no evidence to suggest the Department met its record-keeping requirement set forth in the Directive on the Management of Procurement.

Issue 2: Did the Department attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract?

26. In its complaint, the Complainant alleged that:

“[PSPC] breached their contract by attributing the work in an unequal and unfair way...we believe that the work was allocated based on price, contrary to the Contract’s attribution of work criteria. This practice has resulted in some suppliers receiving dozens of offers for days of work while others have received practically none…

[PSPC] says they have changed their practice in the days following the receipt of our letter, but they have not made reparations for the wrongs caused during at least three months (February, March, April) during which the [PSPC] acted poorly toward its suppliers.

[PSPC] was not forthcoming about the problem we raised. It claimed to have not discovered the deviation from the contract terms until we brought it to their attention in our April 25^th letter. It claimed to have corrected the issue in the 3 days following receipt of the letter. Permit me to doubt the idea that [PSPC] was not aware of its own actions before receipt of our letter. It had to have mandated its employees to act in this way. Otherwise, perhaps it was not aware that it was committing a deviation [from the contract]? It is at fault in either case.” (English translation).

27. In its response to OPO on July 18, 2025, PSPC wrote:

“The primary issue noted in the complaint is whether [PSPC] had failed to comply with contract clause 1.2.3, Attribution of Work, which defines how work is to be allocated amongst contractors….

PSPC acknowledges that [PSPC] did not fully respect the Attribution of Work clause from February 1, 2025, until April 28, 2025, by not attributing work randomly when many contractors were deemed best fit for an event. [PSPC] found the issue stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Attribution of Work clause, internal miscommunication, and failure to verify the clause’s meaning with the contracting authority. Following letters from three contractors on April 25, 2025, PSPC […] took immediate steps to resolve the issue on April 28, 2025.”

28. On October 6, 2025, PSPC provided OPO with an update to its response to the complaint:

“This letter is to provide a revision to the response to complaint OPO-4532, dated July 21, 2025. The letter noted that the key issue regarding the Attribution of Work clause stemmed from a misunderstanding of the clause, internal miscommunication and failure to consult with the contracting authority to ensure that the terms and meaning of the clause were fully understood.

It has come to our attention that one or more employees did issue direction to disregard the attribution of work clauses.

[PSPC] is continuing investigations into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware.

[PSPC] is also considering appropriate measures to prevent recurrence – including process improvements, training, oversight mechanisms and organizational changes.”

29. The Directive on the Management of Procurement states:

Under section 4.3.1, contracting authorities are responsible for conducting procurements on behalf of the department or agency, and establishing contracts and contractual arrangements based on sound procurement principles, including fairness, openness and transparency to obtain best value.

Under section 4.10.1, contracting authorities are responsible for ensuring that accurate and comprehensive procurement records applicable to the contract file are created and maintained to facilitate management oversight and audit.

30. The attribution of work clause, Clause 1.2.3 in the contract, states:

“Since more than one contract is awarded under this requirement, the work will be awarded using the most appropriate model based on the criteria and order of priority below:

1. Availability;

2. Linguistic profile;

3. Security clearance;

4. Professional domicile; and

5. Quality index.

The work is assigned according to the principles listed above. Once the first criteria have been taken into account (availability, linguistic profile, security, professional domicile and quality index), the contractors will be chosen at random, whether they have submitted their bids for components 1 and 3 (6 hours of hybrid work) and/or for components 2 and 4. (4 hours of hybrid interpretation). Canada will endeavour to the extent possible that all qualified suppliers are offered work under this contract, without any distinction based on the hours of work they offer (4 hours of hybrid interpretation or 6 hours of hybrid interpretation).

In exceptional circumstances, the project manager reserves the right to assign work for events dealing with a specific topic or client based on the contractor’s specific experience or knowledge. To this end, Canada will require an up-to-date curriculum vitae of each of the resources proposed by the Contractor under this Contract in order to update profiles and validate areas and levels of education, professional certifications, experience and skills.”

31. PSPC responded to the Complainant in a letter dated June 17, 2025, which read:

“We appreciate your concerns and the opportunity to address them as it has allowed [PSPC] to thoroughly review how it has attributed the work. Our analysis showed that since February 1, 2025, [PSPC] had not consistently attributed the work in strict compliance with the Attribution of the Work clause, since [PSPC] did not always attribute the work randomly when many contractors were deemed the best fit for an event. Your letter sent by email on April 25, 2025, has allowed [PSPC] to notice the discrepancy. On April 28, 2025, [PSPC] ensured that it reintegrated its standard practice of attributing the work randomly once the best fit is taken into account.”

32. The Procurement Ombud requested all records related to the contract; however, no records showing how PSPC attributed the work were received. The June 17, 2025 PSPC response to the Complainant’s letter did state that the Department had not consistently attributed work in accordance with the contract, specifically from February 1, 2025 to April 28, 2025. Additionally, the second response from PSPC to OPO, dated October 6, 2025, acknowledged that internal direction had been issued to disregard the attribution of work clause. Based on these disclosures, it is clear that there were deviations from the attribution of work clause, but OPO cannot independently verify how work was actually attributed during the period in question.
33. The attribution of work issue does indicate that there were challenges in the contract administration process for two reasons. Firstly, it is clear from the contract file that any monitoring and oversight performed by PSPC was ineffective and did not ensure the terms and conditions of the contract were being followed as it pertains to the attribution of work. This was further demonstrated by the fact that the Department did not notice the issue until it was raised as a concern by the Complainant in their letter to the Department on April 25, 2025. Secondly, the absence of complete and accurate records related to contract decisions contributed to the use of an attribution method that was not authorized under the contract. This was inconsistent with basic contract management principles including section 4.10.1 of the Directive on the Management of Procurement, which specifically requires contracting authorities to maintain comprehensive records on the contract file to facilitate management oversight and audit.
34. The Complainant alleged that each of the interpreters under the contract were impacted differently, stating that some interpreters greatly benefited by the change, while others were left without work. The contract provided that work was to be awarded based on 5 criteria in order of priority and once these criteria have been taken into account, work was to be awarded on a random basis between interpreters who met these 5 specific ‘best fit’ criteria. By deviating from the attribution of work clause in the Complainant’s contract, PSPC caused a significant fairness issue.

Finding - Issue 2

35. The Department acknowledged that:
    1. it did not fully respect the attribution of work clause from February 1, 2025 until April 28, 2025, by not attributing work randomly when many contractors were deemed best fit for an event
    2. one or more employees issued direction to disregard the attribution of work clause in the contract
    3. an internal investigation was launched by the Department to better understand who provided direction and for what reasons

Therefore, the Procurement Ombud found the Department did not attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract.

Issue 3: Did the Department act in bad faith?

36. The Complainant stated that:

“permit me to doubt the idea that [PSPC] was not aware of its own actions before receipt of our letter. It had to have mandated its employees to act in this way. Otherwise, perhaps it was not aware that it was committing a deviation [from the contract]? It is at fault in either case.” (English translation).

37. On October 6, 2025 PSPC provided OPO with an update to its response to the complaint:

“This letter is to provide a revision to the response to complaint OPO-4532, dated July 21, 2025. The letter noted that the key issue regarding the Attribution of Work clause stemmed from a misunderstanding of the clause, internal miscommunication and failure to consult with the contracting authority to ensure that the terms and meaning of the clause were fully understood.

It has come to our attention that one or more employees did issue direction to disregard the attribution of work clauses.

[PSPC] is continuing investigations into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware.

[PSPC] is also considering appropriate measures to prevent recurrence – including process improvements, training, oversight mechanisms and organizational changes.”

38. The Procurement Ombudsman Regulations state that, in conducting a review, the Procurement Ombud shall take into consideration any relevant factors, including the following:
    • whether the administration of the relevant contract was conducted in a reasonable manner in the circumstances; and
    • whether any of the parties acted in bad faith
39. The principle of “bad faith” is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as an “intent to deceive.” The Supreme Court in Bhasin v Hrynew (2014 SCC 71) defines bad faith conduct as conduct that is “contrary to the standards of honesty, reasonableness and fairness,” and “untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive.” Therefore, in order to determine whether a party’s actions constitute bad faith, an examination of the underlying intent of the party’s actions must be considered. A conclusion on bad faith cannot be drawn without a clear understanding of the intent of the actions and the circumstances surrounding them.
40. There is indication in the documentation submitted by one of the other interpreters that there were verbal discussions with representatives at the Department, and that those discussions indicated both (a) there were verbal orders to disregard the clause; and (b) that some representatives of the department knew this was incorrect. The first factor indicated that there was some intention to disregard the attribution of work clause, which was corroborated by the Department’s second, October 6, 2025, response to OPO. However, the second factor is largely based on a single person’s notes from phone calls, which does not constitute direct evidence.

Finding - Issue 3

41. The Procurement Ombud found that there is a strong suspicion of bad faith involved in the administration of the contract. However, the evidence on intent is insufficient to definitively conclude that the Department acted in bad faith.
42. As PSPC has indicated that it will conduct an internal investigation looking into this matter further, the Procurement Ombud requests a copy of the report be provided to OPO and the Complainant upon completion without redaction not otherwise required by the Access to Information Act.

Conclusion

43. The Procurement Ombud did not find merit in the first issue raised by the Complainant. The Department did not have a contractual obligation to disclose how contracts were attributed, nor an obligation to share working documents or daily schedules with those suppliers not assigned to a given event. That said, there were limitations in the Procurement Ombud’s capacity to review the administration of the contract based on the documentation provided. It was clear that decisions were not being documented to the extent necessary to meet Section 4.10.1 of the Directive on the Management of Procurement.
44. The Procurement Ombud found merit in the second issue raised by the Complainant. The Department failed to adhere to the attribution of work clause by choosing to attribute work using a selection methodology not included in the contract, and, furthermore, acknowledged that a representative of the Department directed the non-compliance.
45. The Department’s breach of the contract and delayed actions in addressing the issue once raised by the Complainant created a strong suspicion of bad faith; however, the Procurement Ombud did not have sufficient evidence to definitively conclude on the third issue raised by the Complainant.

Recommendation

46. Pursuant to the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual clause 2035, included by reference in the contract, which states that Canada is liable for any damages caused to the contractor, the Procurement Ombud recommends that the Department compensate the Complainant for damages, i.e., wages lost as a result of the Department’s breach of the terms of the contract.
47. Unlike OPO and the Complainant, the Department likely has the internal data and information required to either approximately or accurately determine the amount of additional work the Complainant would have received, and its dollar value, had interpretation work been awarded in accordance with the terms of the contract for the period of February 1, 2025, until April 28, 2025.
48. The Procurement Ombud recommends that the Department and the Complainant attempt to negotiate a fair amount of damages (i.e., wages lost) within 60 days following release of this report.
49. Failing an agreement between the Department and Complainant on the amount of damages, the Procurement Ombud recommends a transition to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), specifically mediation-arbitration (med-arb) to ensure timely resolution of the dispute. The Procurement Ombud further offers OPO’s ADR (med-arb) services as a no-fee option available to the Parties.