Message from the Procurement Ombudsman

It is a pleasure to submit the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO) annual report. This report represents a summary of the activities undertaken by my office during the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

As with any new government entity established to provide services to a segment of the Canadian population, my challenge continues to be to inform the business community that OPO exists. With this challenge in mind, my office undertook extensive outreach activities this past year. We met with Canadian businesses from across the country through chambers of commerce, boards of trade and supplier associations. It has been striking to attend these meetings and to learn that the majority of business representatives in attendance do not know about OPO and our services. The irony is that once my mandate is explained to them, quite a number have procurement issues to share. In most cases, explaining how things work in federal procurement appears to address the issue. In other cases, issues are raised which suggest something is amiss. Of the many conversations I have had with suppliers over the last year, three such issues have repeatedly been raised.

Like all businesses, the suppliers with whom I have spoken have had their mix of successes and disappointments in obtaining contracts to supply the federal government with goods and services. When a supplier has failed to win a contract, there is an understanding that it is the nature of business that there is sometimes a more experienced, qualified or lower priced competitor. As one business owner expressed to me yyou win some, you lose some, that's the way things go … but I don't want to be marginalized. This view of being marginalized was echoed by a number of suppliers, who described situations where their bids were rejected by departments over what they viewed as insignificant administrative shortcomings. A typical example was from a potential supplier responding to a contract opportunity which required the curriculum vitae (CVs) and diplomas of staff being proposed for the work. As part of the mandatory criteria, the department requested that bids include one original and four copies of these documents. The supplier provided the original CVs and diplomas for the staff to be assigned to the work but, through an administrative oversight, did not include the four copies. The department deemed the supplier's bid non-compliant and rejected it. Most business people I have spoken with appear to appreciate the complexity of bid evaluation; on one hand, a rule is a rule and they can see it quickly becoming a slippery slope if departments begin assessing degrees of non-compliance or the relative significance or insignificance of bid irregularities. On the other hand, they are quick to voice concern over what is, more often than not, the considerable amount of time and cost associated with preparing detailed, often very technical, multi-page bids, only to be disqualified for reasons that are not germane to the firm's ability, competence or competitiveness to deliver the required good or service. I am hearing growing support for a more reasoned and balanced government-wide approach to replace the current binary "all or nothing" treatment of bid evaluation.

There were also suppliers who approached me or contacted my office to express their dismay over a recent unsuccessful bid. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority were realistic, understanding that "you win some, you lose some." The result of the competitive process was not the source of their aggravation. What these suppliers found difficult to accept was that some departments refuse to explain where and why their proposals fell short. Unsuccessful suppliers often receive the minimum information required by policy from some departments, namely a regret letter informing them of the name of the successful firm and the contract value. When suppliers call asking for the opportunity to understand the shortcomings of their bid so as to avoid repeating them in the future, they are informed that the department considers the regret letter their debriefing. Many suppliers (who have invested time and money in preparing their bid) consider being given the opportunity to understand the shortcomings of their bid not only a good business practice, but the right thing to do. A businesswoman expressed the issue to me in a way that caused me to pause. She asked: "would you accept a failing grade in your son's or daughter's report card without wanting to know from the teacher what areas your kid needs to work on?" It is evident that not enough departments are doing what suppliers consider to be the right thing.

It is common to hear from business representatives about their attempts and associated challenges in bidding and winning their first federal government contract. One particularly thorny challenge to a number of companies is the process to obtain security clearances. There were various concerns expressed with the process; I'll start with one that a supplier termed a "circular labyrinth." This concern was probably best described by a business owner who spoke to me following a presentation I made to an Alberta chamber of commerce. The gentleman expressed a longstanding desire to supply to the federal government but encountered an unexpected and exasperating hurdle. He took the time to explain that he was unable to bid on federal solicitations because his firm did not have the necessary security clearance, yet he could not find a department willing to sponsor his firm for a security clearance. He went on to explain that this situation was restricting new firms, like his, from providing goods and services to the federal government and, by extension, limiting the pool of firms supplying the federal government to those already doing business with departments. Some suppliers were vocal regarding what they consider to be the incomprehensibleness of being allowed to bid on work for some departments because those departments accepted their firm's security clearance yet not being able to bid on work for other departments because those departments did not recognize the identical security clearance.

In terms of work done to enhance the Office's performance, as I mentioned at the beginning of my message, my informal surveys of business people attending chamber and board meetings continue to indicate a low level of awareness of OPO and the services we provide. An assessment of our outreach strategy was completed to assure myself that it is effective and includes all possible avenues to maximize awareness of the Office's services. While the assessment confirms we are doing a lot of the right things, it has also provided approaches and ideas to increase awareness among the business community. I have started to implement many of those ideas. For example, the assessment showed that the OPO website was the primary means for learning about our services and contacting the Office. Accordingly, the website was re-designed from the perspective of our clients, making it more user-friendly and focused on the issues that would lead the business community to visit the site. I will continue to exploit various other outreach opportunities to ensure that as many businesses as possible can benefit from my office's services.

Finally, in last year's report I mentioned that I had commissioned an independent evaluation of the Office's overall effectiveness. I asked that the evaluation draw heavily on the views of the supplier community both suppliers who had used our services and those who had not and of officials from major procuring departments. The evaluation concludes that there is an ongoing strong need for the services we provide and suggests we investigate two particular issues raised by the supplier community:

• whether departments should be able to decline participation in my office's voluntary alternative dispute resolution service once it has been requested by a supplier; and,
• whether there are ways of addressing supplier complaints that do not fall within the existing mandate.

We will pursue these issues in ongoing efforts to advance OPO's ability to help any supplier who contacts us experiencing procurement difficulties with the federal government. We will also continue to refine our operations so as to be well positioned to identify opportunities to promote fairness, openness and transparency in federal procurement.

Frank Brunetta
Procurement Ombudsman

Date modified:

2018-11-01