Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

Memos point to procurement meddling

OTTAWA — Conservative cabinet ministers kept an unusually close watch on the bidding process for the controversial 2009 relocation contract that critics say could leave them open to accusations of political meddling.

A series of internal memos show the cabinet operations committee had presentations and a “series of biweekly status reports” on the procurement process after the tender call was issued.

The status reports were presented to the cabinet operations committee by then-Public Works minister Christian Paradis who was briefed on the process by departmental bureaucrats while bidding was underway.

Those reports were among documents recently tabled with a parliamentary committee investigating concerns that the 2009 contract was stacked in favour of the incumbent supplier Royal LePage Relocation Services (RLRS) and what steps are being taken to ensure the next contract will be fair.

The relocation contract is one of the biggest of its type in North America, costing the government about $500 million a year to relocate 18,000 military, RCMP and public servants to new postings.

The cabinet committee had ordered Paradis to proceed with the tender call in an April 20, 2009, meeting despite concerns from bureaucrats that the tight timelines were unfair and favoured RLRS. The request for proposal, or RFP, was issued on April 28 and the committee began to receive its biweekly updates after that.

Public Works officials previously assured MPs that ministers were not involved in the 2009 procurement process.

Alan Williams, a longtime senior bureaucrat in procurement, said the unwritten rule within the bureaucracy is to make sure politicians to steer clear of any discussion about a contract once the tender call is issued.

He said the contents of the biweekly updates offered general information and didn’t suggest any political interference but they are unusual during a procurement and could open the door for accusations of unfairness and interference.

“The notion of biweekly updates is a problem … that suggests ministers are getting information and for what?”

Williams said involving politicians risks questions about fairness and transparency that could stack the deck against the government if it faces a challenge at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

“The rule of the game is once that procurement starts and the process is a go, politicians shouldn’t hear anything until it’s done and the answer pops out at the other end or they are risking (accusations) of political interference,” said Williams.

The government’s handling of the 2009 contract and its planning for the next tender call was thrown into spotlight after an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled bureaucrats rigged the 2002 and 2004 contracts and steered the deals to RLRS. The judge concluded losing bidder Envoy Relocation Services should have won the 2004 deal and awarded the firm $40 million.

The 2009 contract was supposed to fix all the problems that have dogged the contract over the years. The timelines were so tight that no other suppliers other than RLRS submitted a bid.

Among MPs’ concerns was why a fairness monitor, hired to ensure the integrity of the process, didn’t flag problems with the timelines. The firm, IT/NET, won’t testify because the employees who did the review no longer work for the company.

Opposition MPs pointed to emails that then-Treasury Board President Vic Toews wanted to see the RFP’s statement of work before it was issued.

NDP MP Mathieu Ravignat argued rule and regulations and fairness monitors won’t make any difference if there is political meddling.

But Public Works deputy minister Michelle d’Auray rejected suggestions that ministers were involved. As the top bureaucrat at Treasury Board during the process, she said, “I can assure you the minister was not involved in the selection or any other elements related to the process of the contract.”

The reason why cabinet made the decision to go to tender over warnings of unfairness has long mystified would-be bidders and some MPs. The contract faced unprecedented scrutiny over the years and the bureaucracy was accused of unfairly handling the bidding process and steering it to RLRS in 2002 and 2004. So why would the government risk such allegations again?

D’Auray told committee the government decided to proceed because it had promised the public accounts committee that it would re-tender the 2004 contract that was at the heart of the lawsuit in 2009 when it expired. That contract included the option for a two-year extension that the cabinet committee wouldn’t exercise.

The public accounts committee investigated the contract in 2006 after then-auditor general Sheila Fraser’s bombshell report that the 2004 contract was unfair and favoured RLRS. Rather than cancel the contract, the government promised the committee it would be retendered in 2009 when it expired and would waive the extension options.

“What I would say is that about the way we run our processes, (is) there is no ministerial involvement in the processes … When there is a commitment to meet a timeline for a process, yes, we are encouraged to meet a timeline for a process when there is a commitment to do so,” said d’Auray.

Bruce Atyeo, a principal at losing bidder Envoy, said D’Auray’s explanation shows that politics and upholding a political promise is more important than ensuring a fair, open and transparent bidding process.

“D’Auray just confirmed that it was more important to meet the deadline than run a competitive process,” said Atyeo.

Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: Kathryn May  

No comments:

Post a Comment