Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So you've allotted something that you have absolutely no idea—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you're out of time.

Do you have a comment, Mr. Bennett?

[Ian Bennett]

Actually, there were a number of points raised. In terms of how that price would compare with the private sector, you need to understand that it's a very complex bundle of services. So we would need to do a detailed analysis to look at the comparatives between how the service is provided to Government of Canada employees and in the private sector. I don't have that information.

There were other points made with respect to the relationship. I want to be clear, Mr. Chair, about the relationship and the steps that were taken in the 2004 process to make sure that it was a fair and equitable process. We completely replaced the team. Everyone involved in the first process was replaced. They had no involvement in the second process.

The second point is that we tried very specifically to make sure there would be maximum competition. We looked at the business volumes, and we tried to attract in every way the greatest number of suppliers possible to participate.

We looked at future capability. As I said, we introduced a new element. So we tried, in terms of the lessons learned and making sure there was a separation between one process and the other, to ensure that it was as complete as possible.

I have one last point, Mr. Chair, if I may, briefly. I want to be very clear that with respect to the reference to 88%, I was simply trying to put that in context. I was not in any way trying to minimize the impact. This is something we take very seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Williams, you have five minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to hear that you're taking things seriously, now, Mr. Bennett, because as far as I can see, nobody took this contract very seriously. You opened your remarks by talking about the success of the program, the first one, the pilot one, and I don't think you even had a clue whether it was successful or not, because you had no information to evaluate it. So be that as it may.

Rear Admiral Pile, the Auditor General points out that Royal LePage was charging your employees between $800 and $8,000 for services they said they would provide for free. Are you going to get that money back from Royal LePage, and are you going to give it back to the employees who paid it in the first place?

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

Mr. Chair, yes, all those files are going to be reviewed individually.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No, no, I asked if you are going to get the money back from LePage.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

All those files are going to be reviewed individually, and those members will be reimbursed.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

By LePage?

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

The members will be reimbursed.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No, I asked if they are going to be reimbursed by Royal LePage, which overcharged them when it was not in the contract for them to charge the money in the first place, because they said they would provide the service for free.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

I'll have to get back to you, Mr. Williams, in answer to your question.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I want a written response on that.

I find this outrageous, Mr. Chairman, that they've had this report for weeks, I presume. They're here before the public accounts committee, they find out that the contractor was deliberately and purposely charging people for what they said they would provide for free, and the witness hasn't even got around to asking if he's going to get the money back. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

Mr. Williams, my concern is for the Canadian Forces members, and we're going to take care of our members.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I want that money back for the taxpayer, too.

Looking at paragraph 5.35 of the Auditor General's report, she says,“While PWGSC evaluated the bids properly, it did not pay adequate attention to the collective facts in bids submitted in response to the RFP.” And here we go again, Mr. Chairman. They tick off the check-boxes, but nobody connects the dots and says there is something wrong here.

I cannot in my own mind understand why, looking at two bids--this is not a hundred bids--how one says I need $50 million to provide this service, and the other one says I'll provide it for free--albeit under the table he collects the money anyway. But he provides it for free, and nobody asks if there is a problem here.

What do you say, Mr. Bennett?

[Ian Bennett]

Mr. Chair, first I'll come back to a couple of points. There were two of 289 questions raised with respect to property management.

Second, Mr. Chair, bidding zero—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Excuse me, Mr. Bennett, I have to interrupt.

There was a $50 million discrepancy between one guy saying for free and the other guy saying for $50 million. Did nobody ask whether there was a problem here?

[Ian Bennett]

There are two issues here.

Firstly, as a bidding strategy, it is not uncommon--it is not frequent--for bidders to come in and bid zero on certain items.

The second point is that we have jurisprudence with respect to our ability to compare one bid to another. In looking at—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's not my question, Mr. Bennett. I asked, did nobody use their brains and say a $50 million discrepancy requires a question to be asked? I'm not talking about comparing one bid with the other. I'm talking about somebody using their brains to say that this seems a little bit out of place, and asking the question.

[Ian Bennett]

In terms of asking the question, again, it's a question of looking at what bidders are providing—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

We're talking about only two.

[Ian Bennett]

—based on their best business intelligence. So can we go back and say—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let's talk about best business intelligence.

Royal LePage had all the facts. Envoy had no facts, other than what you put in the RFP. You said 60% of all their moves are going to require property management services. First, that was factually wrong, because only 40% of the people own houses, and that is totally and completely inadequate. Then you come back and say we need $50 million to provide this one service. You tell us also in the technical evaluation that property management, for some reason, isn't in the technical evaluation. It's only in the cash part of the evaluation, according to Mr. Goodfellow.

I'm going to ask you, Mr. Bennett--this is a serious question: Are you aware of any collusion between any people, public or private--and Mr. Goodfellow has talked about pressure--are you aware of anybody, public or private, who put pressure on this bid to get it done this way?

[Ian Bennett]

Mr. Chair, I am absolutely unaware of any collusion in any regard with respect to the 2004 contract, or any other contracts related to this file.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

It certainly seems funny to me that the way this thing felt and came together, Mr. Chairman, Royal LePage had all the facts; Public Works, DND, and RCMP couldn't get their act together, which totally and completely misled Envoy, the other contractor, and they asked them to provide information on something that was factually impossible to provide.