On March 15, 2015, PWGS issued a solicitation for multiple frigate pumps on behalf of the Department of National Defence, with a closing date of May 15, 2015. Springcrest Inc. submitted its bid by the deadline and was informed in August that the bid was responsive, but that PWGS had decided to cancel the solicitation and re-issue it with modifications.
On May 17, 2016, PWGS again issued a solicitation on behalf of the DND for the pumps, and included a modification requiring that the pumps be shock tested prior to bid submissions. The original deadline was set for June 27, but was eventually amended to September 30, 2016. On May 26, Springcrest submitted an objection to PWGS asking that the modified requirement be removed, since it was impossible for any manufacturer to meet that requirement. Upon the next extension of the deadline, that requirement was not removed.
In July, Springcrest then asked PWGS if the original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) was also required to provide certification of shock testing on its pumps. Four days later, the PWGS issued an amendment to the solicitation stating that if the OEM offered a motor different from the original pump, then the OEM must provide shock testing certification; if the motor was the same, the OEM did not have to meet this requirement.
On that same day, Springcrest made a formal complaint to the CITT on two issues: (1) the terms of the RFP were biased in favour of the original equipment manufacturer; and (2) the timing of events in the solicitation process made it impossible for suppliers of equivalent products to meet the process’ requirements. Specifically, there was insufficient time given to bidders to obtain a shock testing certification, meaning that only OEM suppliers with prior certification could apply. Springcrest further submitted that standard industry practice is to perform a shock test on the first pump a manufacturer produces, meaning that it would take a manufacturer approximately a year to be in a position to provide this certificate. When Springcrest filed its complaint, there were only 62 days between bid issuance and the deadline.
Springcrest further argued that if OEM suppliers were not required to provide shock testing certification, the terms of the solicitation were discriminatory as they precluded, in effect, non-OEM suppliers from bidding. The requirement, according to Springcrest, was also contrary to industry standard and previous DND practice: generally, shock testing is done after contracts are awarded rather than before a bid deadline date. Springcrest also submitted that no pumps were currently available that could meet the specification, as the manufacturer of the motors used in the original pump assemblies was no longer in business, and that no company currently owns the rights to make them.
PWGS submitted that requiring shock testing certification at bid closing was not discriminatory because it was part of the government’s legitimate operation. Further, the pumps were urgently needed by the DND in order to service the Halifax class frigates of the Royal Canadian Navy, which does not currently have sufficient working spare pumps in order to fill their demand. Thus the certification was required in order to procure pumps without further delay, as allowing bidders to get the certification after would delay the Navy getting the pumps by several months. PWGS also submitted that generally governments do require this certification at bid closing, despite what Springcrest had submitted. PWGS did submit evidence agreeing with Springcrest’s assertion that it could take a company a year to get shock testing certification.
This agreement was governed by the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations (Regulations). The Tribunal also consulted Article 1007 of NAFTA and Article X of the AGP, which provide that technical specifications should not be drafted in certain prescribed ways that favour a particular supplier or suppliers. Do you think Springcrest’s complaints are valid? If yes, what remedy would you grant, with reference to subsection 30.15(3) of the CITT Act?
Answer
In Springcrest Inc v Department of PWGSC PR-2016-021 the CITT ruled the complaint was valid, recommended that the DPWGS cancel the existing solicitation and issue a new one, and awarded Springcrest its costs.
First, the Tribunal considered whether Springcrest’s assertion that the amended solicitation was discriminatory, and accepted that the DND had legitimate operational requirements leading to them seeking the pumps without further delay, such as that caused by shock testing certification. Moreover, Springcrest’s evidence did not indicate that PWGS deliberately sought to be discriminatory in excluding suppliers of equivalent products, or of favouring the OEM supplier. Rather, the evidence suggests this was inadvertent. Thus the CITT ruled that this ground of complaint was invalid.
The Tribunal next considered Springcrest’s second complaint, which was that the timing of the events in the process made it impossible for non–OEM suppliers to meet the amended bid’s requirements. Both parties agreed that it could take up to a year to manufacture pumps and have them be shock tested. Thus the CITT found that the timing did have the effect of discriminating against non–OEM manufacturers and that PWGS should have allowed for more time, in the interests of fair competition. Accordingly, this ground of complaint was found to be valid.
Springcrest requested a remedy either of amending the solicitation to remove the shock testing certification requirement, or of re-issuing the solicitation without that requirement. Since the bid period had closed by the time of the CITT ruling, Springcrest’s first suggestion for a remedy was not feasible. The CITT thus ruled that PWGS must cancel the existing solicitation and issue a new one which either removes the contested requirement or allow suppliers sufficient time to provide shock testing certificates before bid closing. Springcrest was also awarded its costs.
Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.
National Education Consulting Inc.
Phone: (250) 370-0041 Toll Free: (888) 990-7267
.jpg)
