Canadian International Trade Tribunal
www.citt-tcce.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Procurement
Determinations
File No.: PR-98-032
Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (15K) through FTP
Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (121K) through FTP
Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (15K) through HTTP
Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (121K) through HTTP
Ottawa, Monday, March 8, 1999
File No.: PR-98-032
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed by Polaris Inflatable Boats (Canada) Ltd. under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.), as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision to conduct an inquiry into the complaint under subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Pursuant to section 30.14 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines that the complaint is valid.
Pursuant to subsections 30.15(2) and (3) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommends, as a remedy, that the Department of Public Works and Government Services reopen the solicitation to competition, ensuring that the solicitation documents clearly and fully disclose all the requirements of the procurement and clearly set out the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of bids as well as the method of weighting and evaluating the criteria, and that the Department of Public Works and Government Services proceed with the procurement in accordance with the requirements set out in whichever one of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Agreement on Government Procurement or the Agreement on Internal Trade applies.
Pursuant to subsection 30.16(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal awards Polaris Inflatable Boats (Canada) Ltd. its reasonable costs incurred in relation to filing and proceeding with this complaint.
Patricia M. Close
_________________________
Patricia M. Close
Member
Michel P. Granger
_________________________
Michel P. Granger
Secretary
Date of Determination: March 8, 1999
Tribunal Member: Patricia M. Close
Investigation Manager: Randolph W. Heggart
Counsel for the Tribunal: Joël J. Robichaud
Gerry Stobo
Michèle Hurteau
Complainant: Polaris Inflatable Boats (Canada) Ltd.
Intervener: Zodiac Hurricane Technologies Inc.
Government Institution: Department of Public Works and Government
Services
STATEMENT OF REASONS
COMPLAINT
On November 26, 1998, Polaris Inflatable Boats (Canada) Ltd. (Polaris) filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act [1] (the CITT Act), concerning the procurement by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (the Department) (Solicitation No. E60MC-8-0001/A), by means of a National Master Standing Offer [2] (NMSO), of a range of rigid hull inflatable boats [3] (RHIBs), parts and accessories thereof, for various federal government departments and agencies.
Polaris alleged that the NMSO is structured to favour the products of a competitor, Zodiac Hurricane Technologies Inc. (Zodiac), despite Polaris’ technical competency and lower pricing for an equivalent product. Specifically, Polaris submitted that it is obvious from its competitor’s sales figures that the standardization of needs is unfairly applied by certain government departments. Polaris also argued that this standardization is done without measurement or evaluation of product integrity, competition on price or measurement against published specifications. Polaris further submitted that the NMSO, as established, provides Zodiac with ongoing benefits akin to sole sourcing, thus allowing it to further develop its market dominance to the detriment of Polaris, the industry and taxpayers. In addition, Polaris alleged that, as a result of the structure of the NMSO process, proprietary information with respect to its products and its pricing is being disclosed to competitors and that the award of contracts under the NMSO was not properly managed or disclosed.
Polaris requested, as a remedy, that no contract, or extension thereof, be issued under the NMSO as solicited, that the NMSO and related agencies’ purchasing practices be restructured towards fair competition and that it be compensated for lost sales and related profits.
On December 2, 1998, the Tribunal informed the parties that the conditions for inquiry set out in section 7 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations [4] (the Regulations) had been met in respect of the complaint and that, pursuant to section 30.13 of the CITT Act, it had decided to conduct an inquiry into the complaint. That same day, the Tribunal issued an order postponing the award of any contract in connection with this solicitation until the Tribunal determined the validity of the complaint. On December 11, 1998, the Department wrote to the Tribunal certifying that the requirement was urgent and that any delay in the award of the contract would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, on December 17, 1998, the Tribunal rescinded its postponement of award order of December 2, 1998. On December 15, 1998, the Tribunal informed Zodiac that it was granted intervener status in the matter. On January 27, 1999, the Department filed a Government Institution Report (GIR) with the Tribunal in accordance with rule 103 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules. [5] On February 9, 1999, Zodiac filed comments on the GIR with the Tribunal. On February 16, 1999, Polaris filed its comments on the GIR with the Tribunal.
Given that there was sufficient information on the record to determine the validity of the complaint, the Tribunal decided that a hearing was not required and disposed of the complaint on the basis of the information on the record.
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
In order to better understand the background to this complaint, some history about the use of standing offers for the acquisition of off-the-shelf inflatable boats [6] by government departments and agencies would be useful.
The procurement of off-the-shelf inflatable boats by means of an individual standing offer [7] was initiated in the late 1980s. This method of supply allowed designated federal government users to purchase boats directly from qualified firms at prearranged prices and under set terms and conditions. In 1990, the Department consolidated all individual standing offers into an NMSO which it issued to Zodiac, the only supplier at the time that provided a full range of inflatable boats with the required characteristics. Similar standing offers were issued to Zodiac in 1991 and 1992. In June 1993, other Canadian inflatable boat suppliers, including Polaris, indicated their interest in obtaining government contracts. As a result, a competition was held, and two NMSOs were issued, one to Zodiac and the other to Polaris. In December 1994, due to the reduced demand, the scope of the NMSO was limited to RHIBs. Such NMSOs were to be issued on a competitive basis to all suppliers that could provide RHIBs within a specified range of sizes and meet mandatory requirements for servicing and delivery. Best value for the Crown was determined for each make and model, based on the off-the-shelf quality of the products offered and the supplier’s certification that its price was equal to or better than the commercial price offered to its best customer, with an additional percentage discount offer to be applied to federal government purchases. The only NMSO issued that year was to Zodiac. In 1996, NMSOs with values ranging from $250,000 to $1 million were issued to Zodiac, Polaris and another supplier. The estimated yearly government business volume was apportioned against each NMSO in amounts based on projections of sales by each supplier, anticipated demands by user departments and the range of boat sizes, models and accessories offered. In 1997, new NMSOs were issued again to the same three suppliers.
On November 3, 1998, a Notice of Proposed Procurement for a new NMSO, the solicitation at issue, was posted on Canada’s Electronic Tendering System (MERX). The Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) includes, in part, the following:
A-14 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
In the event of a resultant standing offer, the Offeror agrees to the disclosure of its unit prices by Canada, and further agrees that it shall have no right of claim against Canada, the Minister, the Identified User,[ [8] ] their employees, agents or servants, or any of them, in relation to such disclosure.
B-1 REQUIREMENT
The Offeror agrees to supply and deliver to the Identified Users a range of [RHIBs] on an as-and-when requisitioned basis during the period covered by the [NMSO], subject to the condition that the items are available or under production.
For each proposed boat, the Offeror shall include in their proposal a Price and Item List inclusive of all standard options, parts and accessories. Standard Options to be covered are as follows:
|
Hull |
Console |
|
Steering |
Electrical |
|
Sponson |
Motor Installation packages |
|
General Accessories |
Trailers / Shipping cradles |
|
Lifting Arrangements |
C-1 BASIS OF PAYMENT
[The Offeror] WILL NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY THE PRICING BASIS ESTABLISHED IN THIS STANDING OFFER DURING THE FULL TERM OF THE STANDING OFFER [except to lower its prices with the Department’s consent].
C-2 PRICING
Prices as listed in your published price lists, less a discount of ___ percent.
D-1 EVALUATION OF THE OFFER
The Offer will be evaluated on the basis of the “best value to Canada (Goods offered, price offered, acceptance of terms and conditions). The following criteria/requirements will be used for the evaluation:
a) The Offeror shall provide a description of [its RHIBs], Parts and Accessories and the relevant prices as per section C-1, Basis of Payment.
b) The Offeror shall provide the base price and the list of parts and accessories included in each boat.
c) The Offeror shall provide a list of parts and accessories available as options for each boat and the price for each item.
d) The Offeror shall provide nationwide repair and maintenance services with facilities (distributors or dealers) in each of the following areas in Canada….
e) All prices and/or rates quoted herein shall be valid for acceptance for not less that 60 days from the closing date of this request and the basis of payment shall not be altered during the Standing Offer period.
g) The Offeror shall have a minimum of three (3) different sizes of [RHIBs] which are currently available in the commercial market.
h) The Offeror must have the ability to provide sixty (60) day delivery turn around time.
l) The following certification must be signed by an authorized representative of the company
“WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PRICES QUOTED ARE NOT IN EXCESS OF THE LOWEST PRICES CHARGED ANYONE ELSE, INCLUDING OUR MOST FAVOURED CUSTOMER FOR LIKE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES.”
Polaris did not submit a proposal on this RFSO. On December 22, 1998, NMSOs were issued to Zodiac and to another supplier.
VALIDITY OF THE COMPLAINT
Department’s Position
The Department submitted that it is the general requirement of off-the-shelf RHIBs, by identified user government departments with actual quantities and sizes not known in advance that led to the use of a standing offer. It also submitted that, because off-the-shelf products are being purchased, the use of a standing offer in this context is appropriate and that, consequently, there has been no developmental program leading to the preparation of detailed specifications for RHIBs. Further, in such circumstances, the best value to the Crown is achieved by requiring suppliers to offer their lowest commercial prices plus an additional discount.
The Department further stated that the essence of the complaint is not a challenge with respect to the actual process pursuant to which NMSOs are issued. In fact, Polaris was successful in obtaining NMSOs in 1996 and 1997 pursuant to the publication of RFSOs. Polaris’ complaint, the Department submitted, is with respect to the utilization of the NMSOs by user departments. The review of such events, the Department argued, which occurred after the completion of the RFSO process, is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which only extends to “any aspect of the procurement process that relates to a designated contract.” The Department is of the view that the firm commitment to a pricing scheme by both the Crown and the offeror in the context of an NMSO marks the end of the competitive RFSO process.
In the alternative, the Department argued that the only procurement under review is Solicitation No. E60MC-8-0001/A, which closed on November 20, 1998. The other NMSOs mentioned in the complaint cannot be at issue, as the prescribed time frames for filing complaints pursuant to section 6 of the Regulations have expired. Further, the Department submitted that the fact that the complaint was accepted as filed by the Tribunal on the basis of the extended time frame, provided in paragraph 6(3)(b) of the Regulations for matters of a “systemic nature,” does not purport to give the Tribunal jurisdiction for review of past procurement processes nor to award compensation for such past procurements.
Further to the above arguments, the Department submitted that there is no basis to Polaris’ allegation that the Canadian government’s procurement of RHIBs under the NMSOs constitute “unfounded and continual on-going support” of Zodiac’s dominant market position. Indeed, government purchases of RHIBs represent only a small fraction of Zodiac’s total annual sales.
Concerning the disclosure of proprietary information, the Department submitted that price information was released strictly in accordance with the terms of the RFSOs, that the only technical information available is from sales brochures published by the suppliers and that suppliers retain confidentiality of their product construction and specification details.
Concerning Polaris’ contentions that the Department did not make proper public disclosure or made improper call-ups exceeding the financial limitations set in the NMSOs, the Department submitted that the procurement of RHIBs is carried out under the automated buyer environment process, which publishes the RFSOs and automatically forwards contract award notices after standing offers have been issued. In addition, information on the number and values of call-ups is made available to the public upon request. Concerning the financial limitations set in the NMSOs, the Department submitted that the individual call-up limitations have been strictly adhered to; it recognized that, due to the somewhat uncertain nature of the estimated volume of business made under NMSOs, the Department’s policy does not limit each supplier to the exact total amount of the standing offer.
The Department disputed Polaris’ allegation that the NMSOs established for RHIBs is utilized as a means to deny Polaris equal access to procurement opportunities. Further, the Department submitted that call-ups on said NMSOs, have not been undertaken without doing evaluation or measurement of product integrity and price competition. Rather, call-ups by individual user departments were made on the basis of their requirements and the price and product information supplied by the holders of the NMSO, all within the context of best value to the Crown. To support the above position, the Department summarized, in the GIR, the factors that guided the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard in finalizing their choices of a particular RHIB from all those available using the NMSOs.
Finally, putting aside the complaint, the Department submitted that a review of the use of NMSOs for the procurement of off-the-shelf RHIBs has indicated that, although the Department has identified requirements relating to range of sizes, delivery and servicing applicable to all users, user departments have additional requirements with respect to RHIBs which are being included in their procurement, e.g. the requirement by the Canadian Coast Guard for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) certification. As a result, the Department has determined that, for future procurements, there should be procurement processes for standing offers of RHIBs designed specifically for user departments, which should include selection and evaluation criteria that address their specific needs. This, the Department submitted, should render future competitions of standing offers for RHIBs even more transparent.
Zodiac’s Position
Zodiac concurs with the facts and reasoning set out in the GIR. It submitted that an NMSO merely qualified its products to be purchased by the Department and applicable government agencies if and when they choose to do so. Accordingly, notwithstanding the issuance of an NMSO, it remains for Zodiac to demonstrate the value and superiority of its vessels relative to those of other firms which have been issued NMSOs. Therefore, Zodiac concluded that the selection of Zodiac RHIBs over those of its competitors is based entirely on the superiority of its products and not on any unfairness or impropriety in the procurement process.
Polaris’ Position
Polaris disagreed with the Department’s characterization of the essence of its complaint, i.e. the utilization issue by user departments, and submitted that, in fact, it is grounded in the Department’s purchasing practices, which, as currently structured and administered, do not allow for fair competition. More precisely, Polaris submitted that the RFSOs for RHIBs need to be more specific and provide all the technical data of the end users’ requirements. In that sense, Polaris submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter.
On the issue of Zodiac’s market dominance, Polaris submitted that it does not dispute Zodiac’s ability to sell its products worldwide and that it is not Polaris’ mandate to compete with Zodiac on a worldwide scale. What is of concern to Polaris, however, is Zodiac’s dominant position on the Canadian public sector market, where, for example, in 1997, Zodiac received a significant number of government orders, while Polaris received none despite having been awarded an NMSO.
In its reply to the Department’s submissions, Polaris did not pursue its allegations with regard to the dissemination by the Department of proprietary information and the award of contracts under the NMSOs.
Concerning the Department’s assertion that RHIB product selection is based solely on the actual requirements of the user departments, Polaris submitted that the structure of the RFSOs are not sufficiently detailed to allow the procurement of comparable RHIBs.
Concerning certain users’ requirement for SOLAS certification, Polaris submitted that it manufactures SOLAS- and non-SOLAS-approved boats and that, if such a requirement were made known in the RFSO, this is something with which Polaris could easily comply.
In reviewing the various examples set out by the Department in the GIR to support its position, Polaris submitted that these examples are frequently based on invalid comparisons or inaccurate data and that the Department put forth arguable opinions, all culminating in observations which, according to Polaris, are slanted so as to discredit its products and capabilities. Polaris submitted, that these misleading statements by the Department which now form part of the public record of this inquiry, are damaging to Polaris’ reputation for quality and customer satisfaction.
In summary, Polaris submitted that the problem with this procurement lies in the fact that user departments and agencies purchase their own boats without the Department first obtaining complete technical statements of requirements. The result, Polaris concluded, is that agencies conduct their own tests, on occasion with vessels which are not alike. The tests are not described, nor are the individuals who conduct the tests identified or their credentials presented.
TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
Section 30.14 of the CITT Act requires that, in conducting an inquiry, the Tribunal limit its considerations to the subject matter of the complaint. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Tribunal must determine whether the complaint is valid on the basis of whether the procedures and other requirements prescribed in respect of the designated contract have been observed. Section 11 of the Regulations further provides, in part, that the Tribunal is required to determine whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the requirements set out in whichever one of the North American Free Trade Agreement [9] (NAFTA), the Agreement on Government Procurement [10] (the AGP) or the Agreement on Internal Trade [11] (the AIT) applies.
In the Tribunal’s view, the first matter that it must consider is the Department’s submissions that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint because (1) it concerns the “utilization of NMSOs by user departments” and not the actual process pursuant to which NMSOs are issued, and (2) because the time frames to file complaints set out in section 6 of the Regulations in respect of previous NMSOs and related call-ups have expired.
Addressing, first, the “NMSO utilization v. NMSO issuance process” issue, the Tribunal notes that subsection 30.11(1) of the CITT Act provides that, “[s]ubject to the regulations, a potential supplier may file a complaint with the Tribunal concerning any aspect of the procurement process that relates to a designated contract.” The Tribunal notes further that Article 1017 of NAFTA provides, in part, that, for purposes of bid challenge, the procurement process “begins after an entity has decided on its procurement requirement and continues through the contract award.” The AGP, General Note 2 for Canada, includes the same definition as does the AIT under Article 514(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that Article 1015(4)(d) of NAFTA and Article XIII(4)(c) of the AGP provides that “awards shall be made in accordance with the criteria and essential requirements specified in the tender documentation.”
In the Tribunal’s opinion, the above provisions indicate clearly that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over any procurement process in relation to a designated contract extends to any aspect of that procurement’s process, up to and including the award of a contract. It is widely accepted in the procurement community that a standing offer is not a contract. Rather, it is a framework agreement which sets out pre-negotiated terms and conditions against which specific orders (call-ups) can be made by authorized users. It is these call-ups which are the actual contracts.
Though it is correct to say that the procurement process is significantly engaged and performed once a standing offer is issued, it is not correct to conclude, as the Department does, that the procurement process is completed. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the process for the procurement of goods or services, acquired by means of standing offer, and, by way of consequence, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to receive complaints, conduct inquiries and make determinations, continue until (1) the last call-up against that standing offer is made, and (2) until potential suppliers are satisfied that the last contract has been awarded in accordance with the criteria and essential requirements specified in the tender documents or that the time frame prescribed to file a complaint has expired.
On this basis, the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction to consider, on their merits, complaints made with respect to Solicitation No. E60MC-8-0001/A and any call-ups made pursuant to that solicitation, which are filed within the time limits set in section 6 of the Regulations. [12]
In its comments on the GIR, Polaris did not pursue the part of its complaint with respect to the disclosure of proprietary information, the improper number of contracts awarded and the improper disclosure of information under the NMSOs. The Tribunal, therefore, will not pursue these matters.
The Tribunal will address Polaris’ allegations concerning the standardization of needs, the lack of comparison on price or measurement against published specifications and the preferential status accorded to Zodiac and ensuing market dominance together.
The Tribunal is of the view that these grounds of complaint, insofar as they relate to the solicitation at issue, can be characterized as follows: Because the Department did not publish complete technical specifications that the potential suppliers can use to formulate their offers, or evaluation criteria on which user departments base their RHIB procurement decisions, there exists a lack of true competition in the RFSO and ensuing NMSOs for RHIBs, which favour the informal and non-transparent standardization of customer needs and which allow Zodiac, through the use of quasi-limited tendering procedures, to maintain its dominant market position.
Article 1013(1) of NAFTA provides, in part:
1. Where an entity provides tender documentation to suppliers, the documentation shall contain all information necessary to permit suppliers to submit responsive tenders … The documentation shall also include:
(g) a complete description of the goods or services to be procured and any other requirements, including technical specifications, conformity certification and necessary plans, drawings and instructional materials;
(h) the criteria for awarding the contract, including any factors other than price that are to be considered in the evaluation of tenders.
Article XII(2)(g) and (h) of the AGP and Article 506(6) of the AIT, in part, provide for the same.
Article 1015(4)(d) of NAFTA, Article XIII(4)(c) of the AGP and Article 506(6) of the AIT, in part, all provide that awards shall be made in accordance with the criteria and essential requirements specified in the tender documentation.
The Tribunal must determine whether the Department complied with these provisions of the trade agreements when it published the RFSO at issue, including the criteria guiding the award of contracts as a result of call-ups made against the NMSOs.
A review of the RFSO, more specifically subsection B-1, “REQUIREMENT,” and subsection D-1, “EVALUATION OF THE OFFER,” shows that the specific needs of the authorized government users are not described. Instead, it described a broad government need for a range of RHIBs, with no technical specifications set out for specific applications. Potential suppliers are informed in the RFSO that, provided their offer meets certain basic sizes, delivery, repair and maintenance service requirements and provided they commit to certain price requirements and meet the conditions to qualify as reliable suppliers, then an NMSO will be issued to them. The RFSO, however, is completely silent on the criteria that particular government clients will use in finalizing their decisions to order a particular make and model of RHIB using the existing NMSOs.
The Tribunal is of the view that the manner in which the Department uses the standing offer method of supply for competing the government requirements for RHIBs does not meet the requirements of Articles 1013(l)(g) and (h) and 1015(4)(d) of NAFTA, Articles XII(2)(g) and (h) and XIII(4)(c) of the AGP and Article 506(6) of the AIT, in that the RFSO does not fully describe the goods to be procured or set out the criteria governing the selection of a particular product and, consequently, the award of contracts. Although information to be granted an NMSO is included, potential suppliers are not provided in the RFSO with all the criteria that govern the award of contracts arising from the call-ups being made against NMSOs.
Given the government’s specific and varied needs for RHIBs and considering the structure of the NMSO at issue, the Tribunal finds that the current approach is inadequate as a competitive instrument for RHIBs. It is not unreasonable to expect the government to set out the specific user needs for RHIBs. Only by knowing these needs and understanding how bids will be evaluated can bidders know whether the procurement is being conducted according to NAFTA, the AGP and the AIT. For that reason alone, the Tribunal finds that the complaint is valid.
This conclusion should not come as a surprise to the Department, as it recognized the deficiencies in the acquisition of RHIBs from NMSOs and stated that “for future procurement, there should be processes for Standing Offers of RHIBs specifically for user departments which should include selection and evaluation criteria that more particularly addresses the specific needs of the user departments.” The Tribunal agrees with the Department’s position and recommends that the latter implement the solution that it proposed in the GIR as soon as feasible.
DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal determines, in consideration of the subject matter of the complaint, that the procurement was not conducted in accordance with the requirements set out in NAFTA, the AGP and the AIT and that, therefore, the complaint is valid.
Pursuant to subsections 30.15(2) and (3) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal recommends, as a remedy, that the Department reopen the solicitation to competition, ensuring that the solicitation documents clearly and fully disclose all the requirements of the procurement and clearly set out the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of bids as well as the method of weighing and evaluating the criteria, and that the Department proceed with the procurement in accordance with the requirements set out in whichever one of NAFTA, the AGP or the AIT applies.
Pursuant to subsection 30.16(1) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal awards Polaris its reasonable costs incurred in relation to filing and proceeding with this complaint.
1. R.S.C. 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.).
2. A standing offer for the use of several identified users throughout Canada. A standing offer is an offer from a potential offeror which allows the Crown to purchase frequently ordered commercially and non-commercially available goods and/or services directly from suppliers at prearranged prices, under set terms and conditions, when and if goods and services are requested.
3. Boat with a hull made of fibreglass or aluminum, on which an inflatable sponson (collar) is attached.
4. SOR/93-602, December 15, 1993, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 127, No. 26 at 4547, as amended.
5. SOR/91-499, August 14, 1991, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 18 at 2912, as amended.
6. This commodity includes three product types generally known as inflatable boats, semi-rigid inflatable boats and RHIBs.
7. A standing offer for the use of one specifically identified user. Such a standing offer can be limited to a region or regions or be national in scope.
8. Any authorized representative of a Canadian government department or a departmental corporation or an agency corporation, as these are defined in the Financial Administration Act.
9. Done at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 11 and 17, 1992, at Mexico, D.F., on December 14 and 17, 1992, and at Washington, D.C., on December 8 and 17, 1992 (in force for Canada on January 1, 1994).
10. As signed at Marrakesh on April 15, 1994 (in force for Canada on January 1, 1996).
11. As signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 18, 1994.
12. 6. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a potential supplier who files a complaint with the Tribunal in accordance with section 30.11 of the Act shall do so not later than 10 working days after the day on which the basis of the complaint became known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier. (2) A potential supplier who has made an objection regarding a procurement relating to a designated contract to the relevant government institution, and is denied relief by that government institution, may file a complaint with the Tribunal within 10 working days after the day on which the potential supplier has actual or constructive knowledge of the denial of relief, if the objection was made within 10 working days after the day on which its basis became known or reasonably should have become known to the potential supplier.
[Table of Contents]
Initial publication: March 8, 1999
