Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Ian Bennett]

We'll make the documents available for the basis upon which the 75-25 split was derived. It was a function of looking at the importance of ensuring quality services, making sure that any service provider could meet the requirements in a very complex field. It looks at the impact on the National Defence and RCMP employees and their families. It was on that basis that the 75-25 technical to price was derived.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I find it hard to see how you could provide that to us, since the Auditor General has told us in her report that she had no access to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Just to clarify, are you going to provide that information?

[Ian Bennett]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Perhaps you can do that by tomorrow or Monday.

Ms. Fraser.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would like to point out that when we conducted our audit we asked for documentation on the rationale for the criteria, which I believe is what Mr. Laforest is asking for. We were unable to receive it, so if it does exist I would certainly like the department to furnish it to us. I would also like to know why it wasn't furnished to us during our audit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's my understanding that Mr. Bennett is going to get it to us. I'd like to see it by tomorrow or Monday.

Ms. Fraser, once we get it I'll certainly undertake to give it to you.

Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The report also says that, when the second contract was awarded in 2004, two companies had submitted bids. One of them won the contract, but the contract was cancelled afterwards. That same company bid the second time around. The other company asked what percentage of the contract involved real estate management. The answer was that this aspect accounted for 60% of all the transactions. In fact—and Ms. Fraser indicates this in her report—it was not 60%, but 0.22%.

I would like to know how that figure could be out by more than 59%. The result was that one of the two companies bid $48 million or $50 million higher than the other. Of course, when we are talking about $48 million, it is clear that the situation was not very fair. The company that already had the contract knew the real figures. Why is it that those figures were not provided to the other company?

[Ian Bennett]

The estimates of the anticipated business volumes that were included in the RFP of 2004 were based on the best information that was available in working with the program departments. We worked closely with them, looking at what the anticipated requirements would be. There was a team from the departments, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and ourselves that put together these numbers. It was the best information available at the time.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will ask Mr. Pile and Mr. Séguin the same question.

Why is it that, between 1999 and 2004, accurate figures were not provided? This is not a minor detail.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

Mr. Chair, as far as I understand, the figures, the statistics, the data requested from the Department of National Defence were provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I could interrupt, do you have clarification on that in a document?

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

If this is in reference to the actual conduct of producing the RFP in the contract, we were asked to provide information and data and statistics on the number of moves, the number of military personnel engaged in those moves, so I would be unable to respond to that particular question as it pertains to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

So you have no documents to help us out?

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's not coming off your time, Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You understand that this difference of $48 million between the two bids gave an advantage to one of the two firms. These figures were based on a false assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Séguin.

[Alain Séguin, Assistant Commissioner, Finances, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The Auditor General and the people in her office gave us instructions about the estimates that were calculated for the request for proposal. I was not there at the time. As a former auditor, I checked how the figures had been obtained.

From what I understand, the RCMP provided three figures to the interdepartmental working group, which were percentages pertaining to relocations. In 60% of cases, relocation involved buying a house at the location of the new posting; in 10% of cases, it was relocation to government housing, and in 30% of cases, it was rental accommodation. That is all that was provided. There was no way of making a connection between what was provided and the request for proposals.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

From what I understand, people at Public Works interpreted the figures based on inaccurate data and that data was used to develop the request for proposals. One of the two bidders knew the correct figures, and the other based its proposal on inaccurate data.

The Auditor General has clearly indicated that the contract was unfairly awarded, mainly for that reason. That is understandable, since there was total confusion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, eight minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Good afternoon to Madam Fraser and the folks who are here today.

Mr. Bennett, on the request proposal, do I have your undertaking to provide to this committee forthwith a copy of that tender proposal that was issued on the contract in question?

[Ian Bennett]

The request for proposal for 2004—?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes.

[Ian Bennett]

Yes. It's a public document. Absolutely.