Administration of Contracts for Interpretation Services (3/4)

January 2026

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:

P114-24/3-2026E-PDF

International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN):

978-0-660-98036-2

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 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. The third of the complaints was received on July 25, 2025, and is the subject of this report.

3. The complaint raised the following issues:

1. Did the Department attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract?
2. Did the Department circumvent the travel time provision of the contract?
3. Did the Department act in bad faith?

4. On July 28, 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 included the same terms and conditions including the attribution of work clause.

10. On April 25, 2025, the Complainant and two other interpreters wrote to the Department, expressing concern about what seemed to be a significant deviation from the contract terms. Specifically the letter focussed on the Complainants’ concern 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, the Complainant 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, the Complainant again followed-up by email.

15. On June 17, 2025, PSPC replied to the interpreters who had raised the issue, advising that the interpreters will each receive an individual response.

16. Also on June 17, 2025, PSPC replied 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: Did the Department attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract?

18. In its complaint, the Complainant alleged that:

“PSPC […] again breached suppliers’ contracts—continuously—for at least one fiscal quarter (February to May 2025), ceasing only after three suppliers, including myself, issued a joint letter… on 25 April 2025 to [PSPC].”

[…]

“[PSPC] claimed to have rectified the situation within three days of our letter, yet made no attempt to adequately redress the resulting imbalance in the distribution of workdays.”

[…]

“[The Department’s] analysis of my availability is faulty, as evidenced by my availability update of 10 February 2025 […] as with any availability update—the most recent one is understood to supersede all previous updates. Any assertion to the contrary defies logic.”

19. In its response to OPO on September 19, 2025 PSPC wrote:

“The main issue raised in the current complaint is 1) to validate whether the Translation Bureau failed to comply with the contract clause 1.2.3 Task Authorization - Attribution of Work, which defines how the work is to be allocated among contractors. The complaint also notes concerns related to 2) complainant availabilities and work assigned, the 3) travel time clause, and 4) response timelines.

PSPC acknowledges that the Translation Bureau did not fully respect the Attribution of Work clause from February 1, 2025, to April 28, 2025, by not assigning work randomly when many contractors were deemed best fit to participate in an event. Following letters sent by three contractors on April 25, 2025, PSPC and the Translation Bureau took immediate steps to resolve the issue by April 28, 2025.

[…]

The Translation Bureau is continuing investigations into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware. This investigation will also inquire about conversations noted in the complaint between the complainant and Translation Bureau employees [….].

[…]

The Translation Bureau conducted an analysis of assignments made between February 1, 2025, and April 28, 2025, to reconcile declared availability with events held, offers extended and accepted, and offers made outside declared availability.

Of note, due to discussions of a possible parliamentary prorogation on or before January 26, 2025, the Translation Bureau reduced its requests for availability for parliamentary work to avoid retaining freelancers unnecessarily and to mitigate potential cancellation costs, given the 60-day cancellation clause. From January to June 2025, permanent employees were primarily used for parliamentary and other events.

On December 8, January 14, February 10, and March 12, the complainant proactively communicated updates to his availability to work remotely. However, as the contract does not permit Remote Simultaneous Interpretation, his proposed availability was not considered.

During the period from February 1 to April 28, 2025, the complainant declared availability for 14 days, during which 11 events were held. He did not receive any offers for events held on days when he was available. [sic] during his declared availability. However, during this period two offers were extended for events in May, one of which was subsequently cancelled.”

20. 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.

The Translation Bureau is continuing investigations into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware.

The Translation Bureau is also considering appropriate measures to prevent recurrence – including process improvements, training, oversight mechanisms and organizational changes.”

21. The Directive on the Management of Procurement states:

Under section 4.3.1, [c]ontracting authorities are responsible for [c]onducting 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, [c]ontracting authorities are responsible for [e]nsuring that accurate and comprehensive procurement records applicable to the contract file are created and maintained to facilitate management oversight and audit.

22. Clause 1.2.3 of the contract awarded to the Complainant reads:

“Multiple contracts were awarded as a result of PSPC’s bid solicitation. The work will be attributed according to the following order of best fit criteria:

1. Availability […];
2. Language profile;
3. Security clearance;
4. Professional domicile; and
5. Quality index.

Work is attributed based on the principles described above. Once the first criteria are taken into account (availability, language profile, security clearance, professional domicile and quality index), contractors will be selected randomly, whether they have bid to streams 1 and 3 (6 hours of interpretation in hybrid) and/or streams 2 and 4 (4 hours of interpretation in hybrid). Canada will endeavour as much as possible to ensure that all qualified contractors are offered work under this contract, without any distinction based on the hours of work they are bidding for (4 hours of hybrid interpretation or 6 hours of hybrid interpretation).

In exceptional circumstances, the Project Authority reserves the right to award work for events based a [sic] specific subject or client or based on Contractor’s specific experience or knowledge. To this end, an updated copy of the Contractor’s résumé will be requested by Canada to update the profile, validate the field and level of studies, professional attestations, experience and knowledge of each resource proposed by the contractor under this contract.

If no contractor can perform the task, Canada reserves the right to acquire the required work through other contractual means than this tool.” (This text is an extract from the English language contract provided to OPO for this review. No French version of the contract was provided to OPO).

Explanation of the reversal of awarding contracts from random to price, and compensation for lost work

23. On April 25, 2025, the Complainant sent a letter to PSPC notifying the Department of the issue, and requesting resolution on it.

24. PSPC investigated the issue and responded to the Complainant on June 17, 2025, writing.

“we appreciate your concerns and the opportunity to address them as it has allowed TB [Translation Bureau] to thoroughly review how it has attributed the work. Our analysis showed that since February 1, 2025, TB had not consistently attributed the work in strict compliance with the Attribution of Work clause, since TB 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 TB to notice the discrepancy. On April 28, 2025, TB ensured that it reintegrated its standard practice of attributing the work randomly once the best fit is taken into account.”

25. The letter offered an explanation of the issue and what the Department did to address it. However, the letter did not offer compensation for potential lost work.

Did the Department accurately take into account the Complainant’s work availability?

26. Section 1.2.4 Request for Availability in the contract reads:

“The Contractor may submit their availability at any time. The Contractor can also amend declared availability at any time before having received written confirmation that their services are retained. The [Translation] Bureau will have 5 business days to provide the Contractor with an approved Task Authorization after confirmation that the services have been retained.”

27. In its response to the Complainant on June 17, 2025, the Department wrote:

“We analysed your personal situation with respect to availabilities you submitted following our November 29, 2024 request and work offers between February 1 and April 28, 2025, for events held up to May 31, 2025.

You indicated being available for remote work for some periods. However, as the Bureau only provides remote simultaneous interpretation (RSI) services for the House of Commons and since your contract does not include RSI, you could not be considered available on those dates under your Contract.

We noted that there were several exchanges regarding your availability for the period covering February 1 to April 28, 2025. Our records indicate that you were available for a total of 14 days over that period.

We then aligned your availability with the days where events were held, which resulted in 11 days where events took place and you were available. You were extended and accepted two (2) offers for events that were outside of your stated availability.”

28. On February 10, 2025, the Complainant emailed a representative of PSPC to provide an update on work availability:

“Due to the prorogation, I decided to stay in Australia […] until March 21, as indicated in my last availability update.

However, several colleagues mentioned that they are working a few days per week for Conferences, so I am considering returning to Ottawa sooner.

Could I please ask you to add me to your list of available interpreters from March 1? I imagine that most of the work for the remainder of February is already allocated?”.

29. On February 11, 2025, PSPC acknowledged the Complainant’s email and wrote:

“Yes, most of our requests for February are filled but it is my pleasure to add you to the list of available interpreters from March 1.”

30. This communication established (1) that the Complainant was providing an amended availability update from March 1, 2025; and (2) that the Complainant would consider returning to Ottawa to work in-person sooner, if there were work opportunities. The Department’s response to the Complainant indicated that this was possible and the availability was updated.

31. Contrary to the Department’s response on June 17, and its response to OPO, the Complainant’s email of February 10, 2025 was not requesting a remote work arrangement from March 1, 2025 onward. The Complainant was notifying the Department that they could return to Ottawa, prior to their previous indicated date of return, if there was in-person work available. Section 1.2.4 of the contract clearly states that the Complainant can (1) submit availabilities at any time; and (2) amend declared availability at any time before having received written confirmation that their services are retained.

32. Further, the Department did not provide evidence to support the statement “during the period from February 1 to April 28, 2025, the Complainant declared availability for 14 days, during which 11 events were held.” In addition, two availability updates provided by the Department from November 2024 covering time periods between December 2024 to February 2025 and January 2025 to March 2025 show the Complainant being available for more than 14 days.

33. Moreover the Complainant provided copies of 2 availabilities. The first was the email dated February 10, 2025, and the second was an availability form that was canceled upon the prorogation of Parliament. It included availability of 33 days between January 31 and March 28 2025. The document further stated “please note that I am available to work for [the Department] during Parliamentary recess, as well as on any Friday.”

Attribution of Work

34. 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.”

35. 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 clauses, and that an investigation was launched into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware. 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.

36. 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 may have also contributed to the use of a work 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.

37. 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 five 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 1

38. The Procurement Ombud found that the Department did not attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract based on the failure to accurately take the Complainant’s availability in to account, as well as its admission that contract clause 1.2.3 regarding Attribution of Work was not adhered to.

Issue 2: Did the Department circumvent the travel time provision of the contract?

39. The Complainant stated “there is also evidence of repeated attempts, in the spring of 2025, to circumvent the Travel Time entitlements set out in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of our contract.”

40. In its response to OPO on September 19, 2025 PSPC wrote:

“Regarding the travel time, the Translation Bureau has confirmed that an administrative error occurred when preparing the initial assignment for the event. This was corrected following the confirmation of the travel plan, and the complainant was compensated in accordance with the contract. However, upon reviewing the complaint details, the Translation Bureau identified a discrepancy related to the loss of earnings claimed by the complainant. This matter will be subject to further investigation.”

41. Section 3. Travel Time of the contract reads:

3.1 The Contractor is compensated for their travel time, regardless of mode of transportation, according to the following calculations:

Travel Time Compensation
Less than 90 minutes N/A
91 minutes to 5 hours Half of daily rate
More than 5 hours Full daily rate

3.2 Travel time is based on the duration of the transit, not the time of departure and time of arrival.

a) Plane travel: For all travel by plane, 60 minutes of travel time will be added before the flight and 30 minutes after the flight, for a total of 90 minutes.

For example, for a traveller on a four-hour flight, a two-hour stopover and then another two-hour flight (for a total of eight hours), the travel time will be 9.5 hours (after adding the 60-minute period before departure and the 30-minute period after arrival).

b) Train travel: When travelling by train, the travel time is increased by a period of 30 minutes before departure and a period of 30 minutes after arrival, for a total of 60 minutes.

c) Car travel: The car trip time is calculated based on the time required to complete the trip under normal travel conditions.

42. The Complainant provided as evidence other communications with other interpreters which described their own issues under their own separate contracts. OPO can only review the concerns related to travel time for the complaint and contract in question, and cannot review evidence of the travel time issue related to other potential Complainants or contracts, even if they provide the same interpretation services.

43. The specific instance in question concerns travel within Canada. The Complainant was contracted to provide interpretation services in Saskatoon, requiring plane travel from Ottawa, however, at the time there were no direct flight availabilities and a connecting flight was required. The travel time, with connecting flights, was over the 5 hour threshold in the contract, which would qualify for the full-day rate. This was required both to and from Saskatoon.

44. The Complainant wrote to the Department on May 30, 2025, concerning the travel time included in the Task Authorization. It only included 1 over five-hour allotment, only taking into account 1 leg of the voyage, when it should have included 2 five-hour allotments to contemplate for a round trip.

45. The Department’s response to OPO noted (1) that this was an administrative error and the Complainant was compensated in accordance with the contract; and (2) that further investigation is required to understand if the right amount was paid.

Finding Issue 2

46. The Procurement Ombud found merit in the Complainant’s claim and recommends that the results of the investigation concerning the amount paid to the Complainant for travel time be made available to OPO so that OPO can ensure that the Complainant was paid in accordance with the travel time provision of the contract.

Issue 3: Did the Department act in bad faith?

47. The Complainant stated that:

“The pattern of conduct in the administration of this contract—as evidenced in this sworn statement—leaves no doubt: the violation was not accidental, but the product of intent to deceive, bad faith, and knowing and intentional wrongdoing—a deliberate course of action carried out in secrecy.”

48. 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.

The Translation Bureau is continuing investigations into how this incident occurred, including who provided direction and for what reasons, and who else was aware.

The Translation Bureau is also considering appropriate measures to prevent recurrence—including process improvements, training, oversight mechanisms and organizational changes.”

49. The Procurement Ombudsman Regulations state that 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

50. The principle of “bad faith” is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as an “intent to deceive.” (emphasis added) The Supreme Court in Bhasin v Hrynew (2014 SCC 71) similarly 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.

51. Based on the Department’s own admission that one or more employees directed others to disregard the contract’s attribution of work clauses, and that an internal investigation was launched—including who gave the direction and why—there is evidence of a breach of contract.

52. There is some indication in the documentation submitted by the Complainant 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. However, this documentation does not constitute direct evidence, and is largely based on the Complainant’s notes from phone calls.

53. These notes from the Complainant included information on three separate interactions with the Department which are as follows:

54. On April 22, 2025, the Complainant spoke with a representative of PSPC at the Conference Interpretation Service. In a summary of the conversation, the Complainant noted that management directed that work be assigned by price; that the new direction was not communicated to all contract holders; some employees implementing the new direction were uncomfortable with it.

55. On May 21, 2025 the Complainant spoke with a different representative of PSPC at the Conference Interpretation Service. The representative confirmed that there was direction to award contracts based on lowest price, but that the direction was canceled at that point; there was no direction to provide compensation for the potential lost work.

56. On June 30, 2025 the Complainant spoke with the same representative from April 22, 2025. The representative confirmed the name of the executive who issued the directive to award contracts based on lowest price, and noted that direction was given verbally. The representative also noted that the executive who issued the order had since retired.

Finding Issue 3

57. 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.

58. As PSPC has indicated that it will conduct an internal investigation looking into this matter further, the Procurement Ombud recommends 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

59. The Procurement Ombud found merit in the first 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. Moreover, 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, which requires accurate and comprehensive procurement records to be created and maintained to facilitate management oversight and audit.

60. The Procurement Ombud further found that the Department did not accurately take into account the Complainant’s work availability, because it did not consider the Complainant’s in-person availability from March 1, 2025.

61. The Procurement Ombud found merit in the second issue raised by the Complainant and recommends that the results of the investigation concerning the amount paid to the Complainant for travel time be made available to OPO so that OPO can ensure that the Complainant was paid in accordance with the travel time provision of the contract.

62. 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

63. 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.

64. 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 March 1, 2025, until April 28, 2025.

65. 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.

66. 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.

67. The Procurement Ombud further recommends that the results of the investigation reports concerning direction to disregard the attribution of work clause, and the amount paid to the Complainant regarding the travel time provision of the contract, be provided to OPO without redaction not otherwise required by the Access to Information Act, as soon as the reports have been completed.