Administration of Contracts for Interpretation Services (4/4)

February 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:
Catalogue number:
P114-24/4-2026E-PDF
International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN):
978-0-660-98144-4

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

Summary

On this page

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 August 8, 2025, OPO received the fourth of the 4 complaints from a Canadian supplier (the Complainant) that resulted in this report.

3. The complaint raised the following issues:

  1. Did the Department improperly require the use of a new tool—SAP Ariba?
  2. Did the Department attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract?
  3. Did the Department act in bad faith?

4. On August 13, 2025, OPO confirmed that 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 that 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:

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, 3 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 June 17, 2025, PSPC replied by email individually to each of the 3 interpreters in response to their letter sent on April 25, 2025.

12. 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 improperly require the use of a new tool—SAP Ariba?

13. In its Complaint, the Complainant wrote:

“[…] we have just been advised, on August 1st, that we all have to switch over to an American system (ARIBA) for information exchange and financial transactions, as of August 29. On top of posing serious data security concerns in the current political context, this system is impenetrable. Every attempt to simply log in wastes hours of time, both for the interpreter and the CanadaBuys help desk. More importantly, this is a substantial change in conditions, which once again is a non-consensual modification of our contract.”

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

“PSPC is migrating its electronic procurement platform from Automated Buyer
Environment System to SAP Ariba. The request to the complainant to register on
SAP Ariba is to facilitate this migration and it is purely administrative, it is not a
contract amendment and it will not have an impact on how the work is managed
under the contract.

SAP Ariba is the Government of Canada’s electronic procurement platform, used by
PSPC to post tender opportunities, manage supplier participation and conduct
procurement activities in a secure, standardized environment. It serves as the
central tool for federal procurement, integrated with the CanadaBuys website, where
suppliers can register, access solicitations, submit bids and receive notifications.

Within PSPC, SAP Ariba is configured to support the full procurement cycle, from
posting tender opportunities and receiving proposals to evaluation and contract
award, while ensuring compliance with federal procurement policies.

While SAP Ariba is a commercial platform headquartered in the United States, the
Government of Canada has contractual and technical safeguards in place to protect
personal, business and banking information in accordance with Canadian privacy
laws. Access to the platform and all the data that it contains is managed under those
standards.”

15. In September 2022, CanadaBuys replaced BuyandSell as the official source for tender and award notices for the Government of Canada. SAP Ariba was being integrated into CanadaBuys throughout 2021-2022, as an electronic procurement solution.

16. The Request for Proposal (RFP) specifically contemplates the transition to an electronic procurement solution platform. Section 1.3 of the RFP reads:

“During the period of the Contract, Canada may transition to an electronic procurement solution (EPS) for more efficient processing and management of individual contracts for applicable services. Canada reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to make the use of the new EPS mandatory. Canada agrees to provide the supplier with a reasonable notice to allow for any measures necessary for the integration of the contract into the EPS. The notice will include a detailed information package indicating the requirements, as well as any applicable guidance and support. If the supplier chooses not to provide the services through the EPS, the supplier’s Contract may be set aside by Canada.”

17. By submitting a bid in response to this RFP, the Complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the RFP. By signing the contract, the bidder confirmed acceptance of all terms and conditions set out in the RFP, as well as those included in the contract.

Finding Issue 1

18. The Procurement Ombud did not find merit in the first issue raised by the Complainant, as section 1.3 of the RFP specifically contemplates the transition to an electronic procurement solution such as SAP Ariba.

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

19. In its complaint, the Complainant alleged that

“I received only 15 offers for work from [PSPC] between November 2024 and April 2025. In comparison, I usually have at least 3 days per week for them, and even more offers for contracts. […] It turns out that instead […] PSPC has been in violation of our contract […] which specifies the obligation to award contracts according to ''best fit'', meaning the candidate that is best suited to provide services to a particular client, rather than the cheapest option. It has been brought to my attention that staff were instructed to assign contracts to ''lowest bidder'' as of January 2025 or earlier, which was later corrected after some of my colleagues were made aware and wrote a letter to the [Translation] Bureau.

I do not know what kind of redress is possible. This organisation (PSPC) has consistently been acting with a complete lack of good will, violating our contract, and showing at every turn its utter misunderstanding and disrespect for our profession. It has caused deep harm and still is causing far reaching damage. […]”

20. In its response to OPO on September 12, 2025, PSPC wrote:

“The main issue raised in the complaint is to validate whether [PSPC] failed to comply with the contract clause 1.2.3 Task Authorization - Attribution of Work, which defines how work is to be allocated among contractors. […]

PSPC acknowledges that [it] 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. The [Translation Bureau] concluded that the problem stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Attribution of Work clause, internal miscommunication and a failure to consult with the contracting authority to ensure that the terms and meaning of the clause were fully understood. 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.”

21. 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 […], 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.”

22. 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.

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

“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.” (English translation from French contract. No English version was provided to OPO.)

24. The Procurement Ombud requested all records related to the contract. However, no records showing how PSPC attributed the work were received with the department’s response. 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 this disclosure, 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.

25. The attribution of work issue does indicate that there were challenges in the contract administration process for 2 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. Secondly, the absence of complete and accurate records related to contract decisions may have also 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.

Finding Issue 2

26. 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.

27. Therefore, the Procurement Ombud found merit in the second issue raised by the Complainant. The Department did not attribute work in accordance with the requirements of the contract.

Issue 3: Did the Department act in bad faith?

28. The Complainant stated that:

“This organisation (PSPC) has consistently been acting with a complete lack of good will, violating our contract, and showing at every turn its utter misunderstanding and disrespect for our profession. It has caused deep harm and still is causing far reaching damage. The Translation Bureau has been either complicit in those vexatious endeavours or incapable of defending itself (and us). It seems to be a deep systemic problem. A culture change is necessary for the survival of interpretation AND the Translation Bureau.”

29. 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 [the complaint], 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.”

30. The Procurement Ombudsman Regulations state that the Procurement Ombud shall take into consideration any relevant factors, including the following:

31. 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.

32. 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 do not constitute direct evidence.

Finding Issue 3

33. 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.

34. 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

35. The Procurement Ombud did not find merit in the first issue raised by the Complainant. The Department did not inappropriately require use of the e-procurement solution SAP Ariba, as the RFP specifically contemplated the transition to an electronic procurement solution.

36. 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. 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.

37. The Department’s breach of the contract and delayed actions in addressing the issue 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

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. The Procurement Ombud further recommends that the results of the investigation report concerning direction to disregard the attribution of work clause be provided to OPO without redaction not otherwise required by the Access to Information Act, as soon as the report has been completed.

Date modified: