3. Bid solicitation preparation—Assessor Guidance Document—Supply Arrangement Requirements

Assessment guidance and notes

A complete copy of the bid solicitation document, including but not limited to the Statement of Work (SOW), category/categories and levels required, security requirement, mandatory and point rated criteria, basis of selection, certifications, Flexible Grid (if applicable), resultant contract clauses etc. must be on file. Without a copy of the complete bid solicitation document, it is not possible for the Assessor to confirm the information sent to the Supplier.

Assessment guidance and notes

The Assessor must verify that the category/categories, level of expertise, Supplier Security Clearance, Supplier Document Safeguarding and Region/Metropolitan Area stated in the bid solicitation document matches criteria used to conduct the search.

The following applies to Directed Requirements only:

• If the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level stated in the supplier's Centralized Professional Services System (CPSS) ePortal profile are higher than that stated in the bid solicitation, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The rationale being that the supplier selected would have been returned in the search results in either case
• If the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level stated in the supplier's CPSS ePortal profile is lower than that stated in the bid solicitation, a non-conformance will be raised if there is no documentation on file that confirms what the supplier security clearance or document safeguarding level was at the time the bid solicitation was issued

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitations must provide Suppliers with a minimum period within which to respond. The minimum bid response times were developed, in consultation with suppliers and department users, to allow suppliers sufficient time to locate resources capable of completing the work. Contracting Authorities who provide a response time that is less than the requisite minimum must have written justification on file. Justification would be established through consultations with the client and possibly the identified suppliers.

When calculating the response period, the date shown on the bid solicitation document or the date the bid solicitation document was sent to the Suppliers (if different than the date shown on the bid solicitation document) is not counted. Where there are discrepancies with the date on both documents (e.g. date on bid solicitation document is January 7, 2020 and date of email is January 8, 2020), the date the bid solicitation document was sent to the Suppliers shall be used to determine compliance to this requirement. Where the bid solicitation document does not state the response date, the date that Suppliers are sent the bid solicitation document shall be assumed to represent the bid solicitation date and shall be used to determine compliance to this requirement.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitation documents must contain, as a minimum but not limited to, the following information:

• Standard Instructions:
  • Bid submission instructions (address for submission of bids, bid closing date and time);
• Bid preparation instructions
• Bid evaluation procedures
• Basis of selection
• Financial capability (if applicable)
• Certifications
• Security Clause (if applicable)
• Complete Security Requirement Check List (SRCL), except for part D—refer note below
• Resulting contract clauses (including Task Authorization (TA) clauses, travel, etc. if applicable)
• Complete description of the work (i.e. SOW)

Bid solicitation documents for all MoSs, with the exception of ProServices and Temporary Help Services (THS), must use the "High Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (HC)" bid solicitation template available in the Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual. Bid solicitation documents issued using the ProServices MoS must use the "Medium Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (MC)" bid solicitation template available in the SACC Manual. THS must use one of the three (3) templates available on the THS Web site. The HC and MC and THS bid solicitation templates contain clauses that must appear in the bid solicitation document and clauses that are only required in specific circumstances. When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not all required information as identified above including all appropriate clauses have been incorporated into the bid solicitation document.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bid solicitation documents must contain, as a minimum but not limited to, the following information:

• Certifications (if applicable)
• Security Clause (if applicable)
• Completed SRCL (if applicable)
• Resulting contract clauses
• Complete description of the work (i.e. SOW)

Assessment guidance and notes

The Flexible Grid applies to requirements that use either the TSPS Task Supply Arrangement or requirements for categories under Streams 8 to 12 (Non-IT Professional Services) of the ProServices MoSs only. The Flexible Grid indicates the minimum level of points required by each proposed resource to qualify for each Level of Expertise (i.e. Junior, Intermediate or Senior). Various amounts of points are given for relevant education, professional certification and relevant experience. The bid solicitation document must contain the following related to use of the Flexible Grid:

• Statement indicating that the Bidder must demonstrate that each proposed resource offered meets the minimum number of points required for the relevant level and category described in the Flexible Grid(s)
• A copy of the relevant Flexible Grid(s) or a reference to the Annex "A" Requirement of the TSPS Task Supply Arrangement

Assessment guidance and notes

Mandatory evaluation criteria identify the minimum requirements that are essential to the successful completion of the work. Significant discrepancies between the mandatory criteria, the SOW and the Flexible Grid (if applicable) suggest that:

• The work described in the SOW is inaccurate, or
• The Flexible grid (if applicable), specifically the category (ies) or stream(s) and level (if applicable) selected are inaccurate, or
• There is the appearance of an attempt to manipulate the procurement process

Discrepancies between the SOW, specifically the level of each category, and the mandatory requirements would invalidate the search conducted. In such a case, there is a high probability that, if the level of the category (ies) used matched the mandatory requirements, the search results would have been materially different. For example, the bid solicitation document required an Intermediate level (or level 2) Application/Software Architect. The experience required in the bid solicitation document was a minimum of fifteen (15) years. However, the experience requirement for this category at the specified level is 5 to less than 10 years' experience. Requiring a minimum of fifteen (15) years would be consistent with the specified category at the Senior level (or level 3).

Assessment guidance and notes

Compliance of each mandatory technical requirement must be based on a simple "yes" or "no" answer. If judgement is required by the evaluator(s) to determine compliance then the bid solicitation document should provide guidelines so that Suppliers will know how their response will be evaluated. For example, the bid solicitation document requires a secondary school diploma. This requirement is clear, either the person has it or they do not. An example of a criterion that would require judgement is the requirement for a secondary school diploma or an acceptable combination of education, training and experience. In such cases, the acceptable combination education, training and experience must be specified.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the minimum requirement for experience, knowledge required, minimum number of projects, minimum project duration, etc. will force evaluators to deem a resource compliant if, for example, that resource has one day of experience in a required area. Statements such as "experience in" and "significant experience in" do not identify a specific minimum amount of experience and as such, allow for discretionary evaluation.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the recentness of the experience or project will force evaluators to deem a resource compliant if, for example, the experience was gained or the project was completed five, ten or twenty years ago.

The Contracting Authority must, for each mandatory technical requirement state how compliance will be determined. For criterion related to projects and experience, compliance can be determined via the resume submitted. However, compliance to criterion such as security clearance, professional designation, education, etc. should be substantiated through submission of objective evidence such as certificates, copy of diploma, etc. In the absence of a clear statement as to how compliance will be determined, the Contracting Authority will be forced to accept a simple statement from the Supplier as proof. In such situations an Observation shall be cited including a note in the comments stating that the assertion made by the Supplier would have to be accepted.

Assessment guidance and notes

Mandatory technical evaluation criteria must not be construed as unduly restricting the ability of a Supplier to respond to the bid solicitation. Examples of such a situation includes, but is not limited to:

• Requiring a minimum amount of experience within a very short time period (e.g. three (3) years within the last four (4) years)) given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• An unreasonable number of mandatory requirements given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• Experience required is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (e.g. requirement is for category 1.1 - Human Resources Consultant, level of expertise - junior. Minimum amount of relevant experience required is 10 years)
• Certificate(s) required is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (e.g. requirement is for category 2.15 Facilitator Consultant, level of expertise - junior. Certificate required Master Facilitator Certification)

  Note: Master Facilitator Certification is a higher certification level than Certified Professional Facilitator.

• Specific government related experience where the work must have been performed in a particular area within the federal government (e.g. requirement is for category 3.2 Project Manager, level of expertise—intermediate with a minimum ten (10) years' experience within a specific project office in National Defence)

Assessment guidance and notes

Point rated technical evaluation criteria are used to assist in determining which bid solicitation response represents the best value. Significant discrepancies between the point rated criteria, the SOW or the search criteria suggest that:

• The work described in the SOW is inaccurate, or
• The search criteria, specifically the category (ies) or stream(s) and level (if applicable) selected are inaccurate, or
• There is the appearance of an attempt to manipulate the procurement process

Assessment guidance and notes

Criterion against which points are assigned must be clearly defined so that Suppliers have the information necessary to offer the best potential resource(s) and so that the Contracting Authority or Client can evaluate the resources offered and make decisions based on clearly described criteria.

The bid solicitation document must clearly describe the point rated criteria to allow those responsible for the technical evaluation to make appropriate and supportable scoring decisions. For example, if points are assigned to a post-secondary degree, the criterion must state the points assigned for each type of degree (i.e. undergraduate, graduate or doctoral), if applicable, and indicate the discipline or disciplines that would qualify for the assignment of points. Failure to do so could, for example, force an evaluator to accept degrees that have little or no relationship to the work required.

Bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the minimum requirement for experience, minimum project duration, etc. will force evaluators to assign points against projects where the resource has, for example, one day of experience in a required area. In addition, bid solicitation documents that fail to specify the recentness of the experience or project will force evaluators to assign points against projects that were, for example, completed five, ten or twenty years ago.

Assessment guidance and notes

Scoring guidelines used for each point rated criterion must, when specific conditions occur, be able to return only a single value. Scoring guidelines that assign points based on multiple items such as projects must clearly indicate the number of points that will be assigned to each item or project.

For example, minimum requirement is for two (2) years of experience (specified as a mandatory requirement). Scoring guide assigns ten (10) points for greater than two (2) years' experience but less than five (5) years' experience and twenty (20) points for five (5) or more years of experience. Suppliers know that if they offer a resource with five (5) years' experience they will be assigned twenty (20) points for that criterion. However, using the same example above, the scoring guide assigns ten (10) points for two (2) to five (5) years' experience and twenty (20) points for five (5) or more years of experience. How will the evaluator determine the number of points to assign a resource with exactly five (5) years' experience?

Use of Rating Schemes:

In some cases, the bid solicitation document may include a table that provides additional information regarding how points are assigned to a project. For example, the point rated requirement may assign points based on a description of the approach that a bidder would take to complete the required work. In such cases, points would be assigned based on degree of understanding, clarity, completeness, etc. of the bidder. How points will be assigned must be clear. For example, if points are assigned based on the bidder's understanding of the requirement, there can be no ambiguity in the description of the various levels of understanding. In addition, there can only be one score assigned for each level. For example, if a point rated criterion assigns points based on the supplier's level of understanding and the maximum number of points is 50, points can be assigned as follows:

• Level 1—10 points (Fair understanding)
• Level 2—20 points (Good understanding)
• Level 3—30 points (Excellent understanding)

Using the same example as above, a range of points are assigned as follows:

• Level 1—1 to 10 points (Fair understanding)
• Level 2—11 to 20 points (Good understanding)
• Level 3—21 to 30 points (Excellent understanding)

Based on the above, assigning a range of points for each level allows the evaluator to determine how "excellent" an understanding is.

Assessment guidance and notes

Various selection methodologies that are based on points assigned to point rated requirements, may also specify that for a bid to be considered it must achieve a minimum total number of points, minimum number of points per point rated criterion or both. In such cases, the bid solicitation document must state the minimum score required (either total or individual or both). Without this information, Suppliers will not be able to determine whether or not the resource they wish to offer will meet the minimum score(s) required. The potential selection methodologies that this could apply to include:

• Best value defined as technically compliant response that has the lowest price per point, and
• Best value defined as technically compliant response that achieves the highest combined rating of technical merit and price
• Best value defined as technically compliant response that has the highest number of points

Information related to the minimum number of points or minimum percentage of the total points presented in various areas of the bid solicitation document must be consistent. Potential discrepancies include:

• Minimum number of points or minimum percentage of the total points stated in one area of bid solicitation document contradicts the minimum requirement in another
• Minimum percentage of points required stated in one area of bid solicitation document contradicts the minimum percentage of points calculated based on the minimum and maximum number of points specified elsewhere in the bid solicitation document
• Clause portion of the bid solicitation document or scoring guide requires that bidders achieve a minimum total number of points or minimum percentage of total maximum points that is different than the sum of the minimum number of points required for all rated requirement

In the event that the Assessor notes that the original bid solicitation contains conflicting information regarding the minimum points required and the issue is corrected before the deadline set for proposals to be returned, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The Assessor shall note these facts in the comments field of the assessment report.

Assessment guidance and notes

Point rated technical evaluation criteria must not be construed as unduly restricting the ability of a Supplier to respond to the bid solicitation. Examples of such a situation includes, but is not limited to:

• An unreasonable number of point rated requirements given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc.
• Amount of experience required to gain the maximum number of points is unreasonable. Factors that can affect this conclusion include the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW, etc. For example, maximum points for a specific point rated criterion can only be achieved if the resource has a minimum of 25 years of experience
• Points are assigned for certificate(s) where the need for the certificate is unreasonable given the category, level, description of the work required in the SOW (e.g. requirement is for category 2.15 Facilitator Consultant, level of expertise - junior. To get points, the certificate required Master Facilitator Certification)

  Note: Master Facilitator Certification is a higher certification level than Certified Professional Facilitator.

• Points are assigned for specific experience that can only be obtained within a specific organization within a department or within a specific department. For example, points are assigned based on project management experience within a specific area or in a specific type of project within National Defence
• Minimum number of projects required, the minimum duration of a project or both required to achieve the maximum score possible is unreasonable given the category, level, work described in the SOW, etc.

Assessment guidance and notes

Bids submitted must comply with all requirements (e.g. supplier certifications, insurance requirements, financial stability, etc.) of the bid solicitation to be responsive. Selection methodologies available in the High Complexity Bid Solicitation and Resulting Contract Template (HC) include:

• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria (refer SACC Clause A0031T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price (refer SACC Clause A0027T)
• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the minimum total number of points, or minimum percentage of points or the minimum number of points for each point rated criterion (refer SACC Clause A0034T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the lowest price per point (refer SACC Clause A0035T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the highest number of points within the budget available for the requirement (refer SACC Clause A0036T)

Selection methodologies based on the highest combined rating of technical merit and price will assign a higher weighting of points to technical merit and a lower weighting to price. The higher the technical weighting, the more important the ability to perform the work is as opposed to cost. In this situation, the work or duties required, category, level, mandatory and point rated requirements all play a role in the Assessor determining whether or not the Contracting Authority was justified in using a higher combined rating.

In the event that the Assessor notes that the original bid solicitation is either missing information regarding the selection methodology or contains conflicting information regarding the selection methodology and the issue is corrected before the deadline set for responses to be returned, a non-conformance shall not be raised. The Assessor shall note these facts in the comments field of the assessment report.

Assessment guidance and notes

TB Contracting Policy (Appendix A—Definitions) defines best value as - The combination of price, technical merit, and quality, as determined by the contracting authority before the bid solicitation and set out in the bid solicitation evaluation criteria, and which forms the basis of evaluation and negotiation between buyers and sellers to arrive at an acceptable basis for a purchase and sale.

Potential selection methodologies that could be used include:

• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria (refer SACC Clause A0031T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and has the highest combined rating of technical merit and price (refer SACC Clause A0027T)
• Responsive bid with lowest price that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the minimum total number of points, or minimum percentage of points or the minimum number of points for each point rated criterion (refer SACC Clause A0034T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the lowest price per point (refer SACC Clause A0035T)
• Responsive bid that meets all mandatory technical evaluation criteria and achieves the highest number of points within the budget available for the requirement (refer SACC Clause A0036T)
• Right-fit only applicable to THS and only when using competitive method 1

Demonstrating that best value has been achieved using methodology b) (i.e. technically compliant response that achieves the highest combined rating of technical merit and price) can be challenging. Selection methodologies based on the highest combined rating of technical merit and price will assign a higher weighting of points to technical merit and a lower weighting to price. The higher the technical weighting, the more important the ability to perform the work is as opposed to cost and the higher the potential premium Canada would have to pay for the higher rated work. In this situation, the work or duties required, the classification, the level, the mandatory and point rated requirements all play a role in the Assessor determining whether or not the Contracting Authority was justified in using a higher combined rating. The fifth selection methodology (i.e. technically compliant response that achieves the highest number of points) is commonly used for scientific work or where the outcome is based on a solution.

Assessment guidance and notes

CPSS ePortal allows the Contracting Authority to save an electronic copy of the initial and final search results. Without a copy of the initial and final search results on file, the Assessor will not be able to confirm that the following harmonized business rules have been applied.

• $0 - $40k --> One supplier selected from the initial search results
• All MoS at the exception of THS - $0 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or Canada Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA) (effective July 1st, 2020) --> Minimum of two (2) suppliers must be invited from the initial search results by selecting two suppliers, or by selecting one supplier from the initial search results and allowing the CPSS Client Module to randomly select the second supplier, or allowing the CPSS Client Module to select two random suppliers
• All MoS at the exception of THS - Over NAFTA or CKFTA to $3,750,000.00 --> Minimum of fifteen (15) suppliers must be invited from the initial search results. The Contracting Authority (CA) should select at least ten (10) suppliers with the remaining five (5) suppliers selected randomly from the CPSS Client Module. If the CA selects less than the minimum ten (10) suppliers, the CPSS Client Module will randomly select a sufficient number of suppliers to meet the minimum fifteen supplier requirement. If the CA selects more than fifteen (15) suppliers, but not all Suppliers, the CPSS Client Module will still randomly select an additional five (5) suppliers
• THS competitive method 1 and method 2:
  1. System randomly chooses five (5) suppliers that are certified as diverse suppliers, three (3) being low volume
  2. System randomly chooses another six (6) suppliers
  3. Identified user chooses 0 to four (4) additional suppliers
  4. See rules for joint ventures (JV)’s

Without a copy of the documentation sent, it is not possible for the Assessor to confirm who was sent the bid solicitation document and when. Contracting Authorities (CAs) are not allowed to bypass any Supplier that has been randomly selected by the CPSS Client module. Cases of poor past performance by a Supplier must be dealt outside the bid solicitation process.

Assessment guidance and notes

For Requirements valued over NAFTA or CKFTA, an NPP must be posted on the government electronic tendering service (GETS). For requirements above $400K for Temporary Help Services (THS) only, an NPP must be posted on GETS. The NPP alerts qualified suppliers who were not invited to request a copy of the bid solicitation.

Assessment guidance and notes

The following items, common to all harmonized MoSs in the CPSS ePortal, must be included in all NPPs where applicable.

Sample NPPs for SBIPS, TBIPS and TSPS are available to federal government users. When determining compliance to this element, Assessors must determine whether or not all required information as identified above have been incorporated into the NPP.

Assessment guidance and notes

Contracting Authority may, during the response period, need to amend the bid solicitation document. Reasons for amending the bid solicitation document include changing the response closing date, revisions to the SOW, revisions to the technical evaluation criteria (mandatory or point-rated criteria or both), etc. Amendments to the bid solicitation document must be provided to all Suppliers including any Suppliers who may have previously indicated that they were not going to bid and all qualified suppliers not on the final search results but who requested, as a result of the posting of an NPP, and were sent a copy of the bid solicitation document. Suppliers have the right to amend their decision to respond or not respond up to the point in time when the response period closes. It is possible that, based on the new or amended information provided, a Supplier may change its mind and elect to submit a response.

Amendments to the bid solicitation document may not change any element of the original bid solicitation document that would invalidate the search conducted. Such changes include revisions to the category (ies), level, supplier security requirement, region/metropolitan area, etc.