Facilitate

While in many cases we are able to deal with issues by providing information and answering questions, there were cases where this was not sufficient. In these instances, we strive to find ways to address the issues as quickly and simply as possible. Often this involves facilitating dialogue between the supplier and the department or agency. As an ombudsman office, our impartial and independent status allows us to help the parties discuss concerns in an honest and straightforward manner while clarifying issues and exploring divergent perspectives.

Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO)'s approach in handling procurement- related issues is prescribed by the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations, which provide the parameters for the Office's activities. To be reviewed by the Office, complaints must be filed in accordance with the criteria established in the Regulations. Of the 112 issues brought to our attention, 30 (27%) complaints were filed in accordance with the Regulations; 24 of these 30 complaints pertained to the award of contracts while the remaining 6 pertained to the administration of contracts. In the case of complaints regarding either the award or administration of contracts, the Procurement Ombudsman has 10 working days after the complaint is considered filed to determine whether to review (i.e. investigate) the complaint. These 10 working days are used by OPO to continue to facilitate a resolution to the issues raised in the complaint.

"We appreciate all your timely support and efforts to bringing this to resolution". Supplier

The remaining 82 (73%) were not filed in accordance with the Regulations. These issues were either addressed by facilitating dialogue between the supplier and department or represent cases where suppliers raised an issue with us but did not want to escalate it further.

Examples of our ability to help resolve issues through our facilitation role include:

Travel Miles not accepted?

Suppliers were invited to bid on a contract opportunity, which required the costs of travel be included in the bid. However, suppliers were not all located in the same geographic area, thereby creating an unlevel playing field in the cost of potential travel. A supplier raised this issue with OPO, questioning the fairness of this requirement.

Following our intervention, the contracting department removed the requirement of having to include travel costs in the financial proposal.

Congratulations… sorry not you.

A contract was issued to a supplier and the next day the same supplier was told it was a mistake. When the supplier questioned what happened, the department's explanations raised more questions for the supplier, who then contacted OPO requesting assistance. After our intervention, the department asked us to organize a debriefing meeting between the two parties. As a result of this meeting, the situation was resolved.

Are you seeing double?

A contract opportunity stated suppliers could not submit more than one bid (i.e. independently and then again as part of a joint bid). Without his consent, a supplier's company was listed as a sub- consultant in another supplier's bid. As a result, the supplier's own bid was deemed non-responsive. The supplier felt the strict interpretation of the clause was unfair. With our intervention, the department realized what the issue was, reversed its decision and evaluated the supplier's bid.

Deserving of a closer look….

The Office was contacted by a supplier who raised concerns about the government's approach to procuring a particular good. This supplier was concerned about the potential negative implications on their business. Upon consideration, it was determined the nature of the supplier's concerns were not within OPO's mandate to review.

However, the Office undertook research and analysis on the concerns raised, consulting both publicly available information and internal-to- government documents. The Office advised the supplier of the analysis and offered options for the supplier to consider if they wished to pursue the concerns. In addition, the Office contacted relevant federal departments to bring the supplier's concerns to the attention of senior decision-makers in the federal public service.

"From our perspective we were able to discuss issues as adults that needed to be reviewed. To us it was a worthwhile experience. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all individuals who were involved in this process". Supplier

Helping to Resolve Contractual Disputes

We are occasionally approached because a disagreement has arisen over the interpretation of an existing contract between a supplier and a department. The disagreement typically revolves around vague or ambiguous clauses in the contract's terms and conditions. In such cases, either party to the contract can request our Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. This service helps disputing parties avoid legal action by allowing them to discuss disagreements in a non-confrontational manner. Our ultimate goal in providing this service is to help the parties resolve the disagreement while restoring their business relationships and maintaining the original intent of the contract (whereby the department or agency receives the purchased good or service and the supplier is appropriately remunerated.) Our no-fee service has proven to:

• allow parties to avoid lengthy and costly litigation;
• allow for creative, compromise-based solutions;
• allow parties to have greater control over outcomes; and
• provide the opportunity to reach a legally binding settlement.

Total ADR Files 2013-2013	Outside OPO Jurisdiction	Department Declined to Participate	Request Withdrawn	ADR Conducted + Settlement Reached
4	2	1	1	1Footnote 1

Of the four requests for Alternative Dispute Resolution services:

• two could not be accommodated as they fell outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction (in both of these cases the issue was brought to the attention of the Deputy Head of the organization);
• one supplier request was declined by the department; and
• one supplier request was withdrawn.

The ADR service, launched in 2011-2012, resulted in a settlement being reached. The following is a summary of that case:

The Office received a request from a supplier with concerns regarding a disagreement with a department over the process used to obtain the services of a driver through the Temporary Help Services contracting vehicle. The individual (i.e. the driver) was subsequently hired on a permanent basis by the department and the supplier felt entitled to compensation in the form of a finder's fee as per the terms and conditions of the contracting vehicle. Although the department felt there was no obligation or legal basis for the dispute, they agreed to participate in an ADR process as a show of good will. The process produced a mutually agreed-upon settlement.

Date modified:

2018-11-01