Trade Agreement: WTO-AGP/NAFTA/AIT/Canada FTAs with Peru/Colombia/Panama
Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
Competitive Procurement Strategy:
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to solicit comments and feedback from the e-procurement industry and potential bidders concerning the attached draft Request for Proposal (RFP). The final RFP is anticipated to be for a Contractor to deliver, enable, support, manage and implement a fully hosted and supported web-based e-Procurement Solution (EPS) for the Government of Canada to modernize public procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively burdensome and deploy modern comptrollership. It is anticipated that this procurement will provide Canada the opportunity to establish a government wide standard for procurement.
It is intended that EPS will be leveraged to establish a new Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS) in fulfillment of Canada’s international trade obligations. It is further intended that EPS will be leverage to provide procurement services to the broader Canadian Public Sector.
In addition to delivering a technology solution, the Contractor will be required to provide services in the application of mature transformation and change management methodologies, tools and processes, including necessary training and communications with management, partners and end users.
The Contractor will be required to perform these and related services in both of Canada’s official languages to clients within Canada and abroad.
RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR LOI
A summary of the draft RFP documents are enclosed in order to provide a more complete picture of the EPS requirements. All documents are drafts.
Comments and suggestions are to be provided via e-mail to the PWGSC Contracting Authority, on or before the close of business on January 11, 2016. Respondents are not required to provide formal proposals in response to this LOI. Canada does not intend to have in-person meetings as a result of this LOI nor does Canada commit to providing a response to any of the feedback or questions posed to Canada as part of this feedback. However, Canada will consider all feedback received in response the LOI.
QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRAFT RFP
Along with your comments and suggestions, Canada is seeking feedback on the following questions:
General Questions
1. Are any clarifications required to the Statement of Work (SOW)?
a. Are there missing elements/components to the work, tasks and/or deliverables that Canada should consider? If yes, please specify.
b. Are roles and responsibilities described in the SOW clear or are there areas that you feel need to be further clarified, can you comment.
c. Are there any issues that would limit your ability to perform the work outlined in the SOW? If yes, please specify.
d. Do you have any concerns with your ability to comply with the legislative, regulatory and policy requirements outlined in Part 2 of the SOW?
2. Are there any evaluation criteria that you think should be added? If yes, please explain what they are and why they should be considered? Please provide any comments you feel would be effective at creating a fair and effective method to differentiate the quality of bids based on Canada’s requirements.
3. Are there any evaluation criteria that would create barriers to your firm to compete for this requirement? What changes would you propose to alleviate these?
4. Can you provide feedback on the draft definition of ?Bidder? (refer to the draft RFP’s Standard Instructions - Goods and Services - Competitive Requirements, 2003 (2015-07-03), article 04 - Definition of Bidder),in relation to the draft RFP technical evaluation criteria and the project experience-related criteria therein (such as M1 and R1). Is this definition appropriate and clear enough with regards to Canada not accepting the Bidders’ parents, subsidiaries nor subcontractors’ experience in the RFP bidding process?
5. Canada wishes to have a Financial Evaluation that avoids potential distortions in the Financial Evaluation such as ?low-ball? bids that may lead to issues during the Contract. The FinancialEvaluation attempts to reduce this possibility to arrive a competitive, fair, and realistic pricing result. Please provide your feedback on the evaluation approach and if you feel this will support a fairer competitive process.
6. The Basis of Payment, at section 7.10.1 in Part 7 of the RFP, contains a pricing approach with a fee paid during implementation. We wish to cap this amount in the bidding process to help ensure a fair competition and avoid potential front end loading by a Bidder, which would distort the Financial Evaluation assessment. Can you provide feedback as to the cap amount we have indicated?
7. The Basis of Payment, at section 7.10.1 in Part 7 of the RFP, contains assumptions as to usage, to allow a reasonable pricing pointfor a Bidder, with the first tier being 1 to 5000 Users. The next tier would be for 5000 or more Users.
a. Please comment on whether, given the requirements of the SOW, these User number thresholds are generally aligned to support a reasonable pricingbasis for a Bidder to submit a financial bid. Please suggest adjustments to the model as appropriate, including possible stratification of the ?5000 or more? Users fee into more discrete numbers (e.g. 5,001 to 8,000, 8000 or more, etc.).
b. Canada is using ?Users? as a key element in the Basis of Payment as it is deemed to be a driver of Bidder costs and it also correlates to increased system usage over time, one of Canada’s goals. Is this an appropriate element to base the Basis of Payment on? Please comment.
c. User definition (appears in the glossary documents) is a key definition given its ties to the Basis of Payment. Please comment as to whether you would require additional clarity or if any adjustments should be made to this definition to help ensure a fair competition.
8. Do you have any recommendation that would improve the proposed Basis of Payment (see section 7.10.1 in Part 7 of the RFP)?
9. Are the metrics provided in the Draft RFP sufficient to enable you to provide reasonablyaccurate cost estimates as per the Basis of Payment (see section 7.10.1 in Part 7 of the RFP)?
10. A Milestone Schedule is provided as part of the Price Schedule at Annex 3 which contains the percentages of the EPS Transition-In Fee that will be paidupon completion of each milestone.
a. Are the milestones well defined and appropriate? Would you recommending adding others or getting rid of some of them? Please comment
b. Are the percentages assigned to each milestone appropriate? Please comment.
11. The Professional Services categories listed in section 7.1.3 of Annex 1 - Statement of Work are the only categories that will be used to issue Task Authorizations throughout the duration of the Contract. Are the professional service categorieslisted appropriate for this type of requirement? Are there too many? Are there some missing?
12. Do you have any other recommendations that you would like Canada to consider?
Technical Questions
13. Is there additional information that would helpyou better prepare for Canada’s Security Assessment & Authorization (SA&A) requirements as outlined in the RFP?
14. Data Escrow: To ensure protection and access to its data, Canada is considering a requirement to establish an escrow arrangement for EPS.
a. What form of escrow model (software, cloud, data?etc.) do you recommend Canada opts for and why?
b. Do you believe the third party agent should be selected through a separate procurement process? Why?
c. If required, how would Canada be able touse the escrowed data?
d. Please advise whether this requirement is possible as well as an approximate estimate range as to what it may cost.
15. What concerns, if any, do you have with regards to the supplier authentication and registration processas described in the SOW and are there alternative more efficient and effective ways to achieve the same objective and level of assurance?
NOTE TO INTERESTED SUPPLIERS
This is not a bid solicitation and a contract will not result. The draft RFP may potentially be modified as a result of this LOI process, and a finalized RFP will be posted on the Government Electronic Tendering System (GETS) at a future date.
Canada is issuing this draft RFP publically on GETS to help ensure it benefits fully from industry feedback prior to finalizing the RFP. Through the LOI process, Canada intends to seek feedback in writing only. Potential respondents should be aware however that Canada is also concurrently conducting consultations with suppliers that qualified under the Intent to Qualify (ITQ) that was published in January 2015, as part of Canada’s Review and Refine Requirements (RRR) process.
Potential respondents are advised that any information submitted to Canada in response to this LOI may be usedby Canada in the development of a subsequent competitive RFP. Canada reserves the right to accept or not accept the input from industry, as well as alter, amend, delete or add, in whole or in part, any terms or provisions to or from this draft RFP.
The issuance of this LOI does not create an obligation for Canada to issue a subsequent RFP, and does not bind Canada legally or otherwise, to enter into any agreement or to accept any suggestions from respondents. Participation in this LOI is not a condition orprerequisite for participation in any future RFP. The award of any contract resulting from any future RFP will be consistent with contracting policies, laws and regulations applicable to government contracting, and applicable national and internationaltrade agreements.
All enquiries and other communications related to this LOI shall be directed to the APDigital mailbox at: T••••••••@••••••••.••.ca.
CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Acquisitions Branch
Place du Portage, Phase III, 12C1
11 Laurier Street
Gatineau, Québec K1A 0S5
Attention: Maxime Thauvette
Telephone: 819-997-4332
E-mail Address: T••••••••@••••••••.••.ca
Delivery Date: Above-mentioned
The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any procurement.
Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.
