Debates of May 16, 2007 (day 8)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask questions to the Minister of Human Resources with regards to the tendering of the contract on the EAP program to a southern company. Mr. Speaker, in answering questions to the Member of Great Slave, the Minister just told that his staff has advised that the fact that the winning bid used the principal operator of the competing contract which now has been replaced by this new contract, the fact that that name was used as one of the subcontractors and that the new contractor has apologized for including that name into that proposal, the Minister is saying that is not a problem. To me, that is a real big problem. There is something very wrong with somebody outbidding an existing contract by using that same person. It is like McDonald’s bidding for a fast food contract saying Wendy’s is going to do the burgers. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister to answer how it is that he doesn’t see a problem with that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 97-15(6): Contract For GNWT Employee Assistance Plan

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue is not one of whether or not an individual had more merit to provide the services or not, because the individuals whose names were submitted as subcontractors were not assessed by the department as to their qualifications as long as they met the standards that were required. So whether one individual was removed from consideration in one of the RFPs, it didn’t affect the outcome in any material way. Even after removal of that person from one RFP, the BIP office confirmed that it would not have changed the outcome in the application. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 97-15(6): Contract For GNWT Employee Assistance Plan

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of problems with this contract, but let me just focus on this name that was added. Mr. Speaker, just to put it simply, because it is quite complicated, this could be akin to McDonald’s bidding for a contract to supply Winter Games 2010 and they use a competitor as a subcontractor that they will replace wrongly in a real intentional fraudulent manner, I may add. Mr. Speaker, if the subcontractor is not important, then why did the contract ask for names of subcontractors? What was the reason for asking for that subcontractor’s name? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 97-15(6): Contract For GNWT Employee Assistance Plan

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that there is a difference between a tender document and an RFP. The expectation of the tender is that the proponents who are bidding on the tender will have contracts in place with the subcontractors. An RFP is an identification of those who will be used. There isn’t the requirement to have those contracts in place. In this case, as long as the successful proponent meets the set level of northern contractors to make sure that they were appropriately awarded the contract, the advice I am given is that we don’t have grounds to redo the competition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 97-15(6): Contract For GNWT Employee Assistance Plan

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that the reason why there was a requirement for northern contractors was so that there is northern content in this contract. The fact is we have no way of knowing, other than this very clear case, that there were not any other names added to put weight behind this contract. How could the Minister assure us that there were no other names included in there to give weight to this northern contract in a not transparent way? It puts a doubt to the entire process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 97-15(6): Contract For GNWT Employee Assistance Plan

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister, when the issue was raised with her, did in fact ask Shepell-fgi to ascertain that the names that they had in their proposal were properly listed. Shepell came back and, at that point, said, we have mistakenly included one name, and apologized for that and asked us to remove it from the proposal. At this point, we are advised that there was one name, but that is the only one that we are aware of. Thank you.