I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Public Works and Government Services as follows:
(a) According to market surveys conducted prior to the sale of the DND Challengers, the value of aircraft of this type ranged between $3 million U.S. to $8 million U.S. depending upon aircraft condition and interior configuration.
(c) The aircraft were sold as a lot. Consequently no prices were assigned to individual aircraft. The total selling price for the lot was $30 million U.S.
(d) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was paid a commission to cover its marketing services. The amount of the commission is not releasable under the Access to Information Act, section 20(1), as the disclosure of this information would compromise the competitive position of the company.
(e) Lancaster Aviation Inc. was compensated for services rendered through the payment of a commission. No expenses were separately chargeable under the terms of the contract.
(f) There is no record of this requirement having been published in Government Business Opportunities , GBO, magazine. However, the requirement was widely advertised by means of a Notice of Proposed Procurement, NPP, for a Letter of Interest which was published on the Open Bidding Service on October 30, 1996, and closed on November 20, 1996. The NPP stated that only firms which responded to the Letter of Interest would be invited to submit a proposal.
On February 19, 1997, a Request for Proposal, RFP was sent to 38 firms which had expressed an interest in the requirement. The RFP closed on April 16, 1997, and six bids were received. On June 27, 1997, a contract was awarded to Lancaster Aviation Inc.
(g) Bids were received from six of the thirty-eight companies that had responded to the Letter of Interest advertised on the Open Bidding Service and had been sent a RFP.
(h) Five out of the six bids received, including the bid from Lancaster Aviation Inc., were found to be compliant with the requirements of the RFP and were awarded full points for the technical component. The selection of Lancaster Aviation Inc. as a contractor was made on the basis of it having offered the lowest price from among these five firms. One of the six bids did not meet the requirements of the RFP and was disqualified.
(i) Lancaster's proposal met the mandatory experience, resource and financial requirements and they submitted the lowest responsive bid.