I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs some questions about the RFP for bundled implementation for the five-community water treatment plants. I know that the Minister advised us yesterday that all is in order, but I am concerned about the process that has taken place. The Minister stated in the House yesterday that “this contract for procurement is still in process. I am very reluctant to speak to something that has ongoing negotiations.”
Once an RFP is completed, the evaluation has been done and the winner declared, is it standard practice to enter into negotiation with the winning proponent?
That is correct. In the case of an RFP, if the RFP process allows for further discussion and negotiation to the highest-rated company, that can be done.
That seems a little unusual. Why would one bother to put a request for proposal together and get numbers and figures and so on if it is only going to be negotiated once the proposal has been done? It seems strange to me, as well, that if negotiations are taking place with the winning proponent, the losing proponent doesn’t have the opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions. If the Minister could elaborate, please.
Mr. Speaker, it is not at all unusual for a company to have further discussions with our government if there is an area that needs clarification or further discussion.
Clarification — yes, I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Minister. However, there are a number of things about this process that don’t smell right to me. The selected proponent was pitching this project to the five communities at least a year and a half ago, and the selected proponent helped MACA set up the proposal call document for the RFP. Is this standard procedure for a request for procedure process?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the Member: we were the ones pitching the concept of bundling the project. We had serious problems attracting people to bid on these projects when they were put out on individual tenders. The costs that did come in on some of these other projects that are a concern to us were very high. We went to the communities. We sought out a company to give us a feasibility study on this concept, and we presented it to cabinet and decided to go on an open call for, first of all, a request for qualifications. We had five companies respond. We went to the next step and put out a request for proposals. There is nothing unusual about that.
It can cost the bidder for a project of this size up to $400,000 to develop a good proposal, with no guarantee of success. The process used in this case suggests to me that it was the intent of MACA to give the project to the winning proponent from the start. If that was the department’s intent, why do an RFP at all? Why not just sole-source the project in the first place, and save the other proponent the cost of developing the proposal?
There seems to be some assumption that we went into this with a decision that was already made about whom we would select. Of course, this is not at all correct. We haven’t awarded the contract; there is still more discussion ongoing. The process was fair. We had a committee, an independent evaluation ongoing. We’ve had advice from Justice, and I don’t know what more we could add to that. The company that has been informed that they weren’t ranked the highest has been given some time, and they will get a debriefing.
As for the cost, I would really beg to differ that it cost $400,000. However, there is, in the request for proposal, an allowance made for a company to get some reimbursement.
