procurement zone

Why Pleasantness Matters in Procurement - The Art Of Debriefing

Denis Chamberland

I have always thought that a debriefing was supposed to be like a chat between friends, perhaps not on a par with sipping a glass of Beaujolais by the fireplace or on the terrace, but pleasant. “Pleasant,” however, is not always the word that comes to mind when the word “debriefing” is mentioned. Most debriefings are civil and productive; some are not – which is most often the case when the parties involved fail to appreciate the real purpose of debriefings, as happened recently on a water and wastewater procurement.

Real Purpose of Debriefing

What is the real purpose of a debriefing? There are two main objectives. The first is to help the bidder gain a better understanding of its tender deficiencies so that it can improve the quality of its bids on future submissions, and increase its chances of success. Seen that way, it is an investment into the future.

The second objective relates to the obligation of the municipality (or any public sector body) in procurement to achieve best value for taxpayers. Helping unsuccessful bidders to improve the quality of their bids contributes to that broader social and economic objective. But, often because they feel unsure about the appropriate level of disclosure of information that can be made, many municipalities do not groom suppliers to become better bidders.

Drawing the Line

A decision by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) helps to draw the disclosure line. In TireeRankinJV v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (File No. PR-2004-038), the complainant, TireeRankinJV had failed to qualify within the top five bidders on a request for standing offers. On the debrief by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), the complainant was given information about its own bid, but none about the characteristics of the five successful bids.

PWGSC’s position was that it could not disclose any information about the successful bidders, lest it risk lifting the confidentiality of bids. The CITT acknowledged that the Agreement on Internal Trade, which applies to municipalities, contained no relevant section on point, and fell back on Article 1015 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its closely-worded cousin, Article XVIII of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Procurement. Article 1015 of NAFTA reads, in part, as follows:
6. An entity [the buyer] shall:(b)on request of a supplier whose tender was not selected for award, provide pertinent information to that supplier concerning the reasons for not selecting its tender, the relevant characteristics and advantages of the tender selected and the name of the winning supplier.

Something Should be Said

The CITT praised PWGSC’s thoroughness as it pertained to the review and discussion of the complainant’s proposal, but was not so complimentary on the disclosure of the characteristics and advantages of the successful bidders. The CITT did not approve of PWGSC’s tight-lipped approach, saying that “in this case” the words of the trade agreements could not be treated like a set of decorations, that something should have been said without breaching confidentiality. Not very much, but something.

So, where it makes sense, if only as a matter of best practice, it is appropriate and desirable to disclose some information about the successful bidder in a procurement process. It is important to assess carefully, in every case, what and how much should be said, however. Not saying anything as a matter of course where something should be said will not be helpful to unsuccessful bidders. They will feel they are being stonewalled unfairly by the municipality, which is more likely to lead to an unpleasant outcome down the line, as it did in TireeRankinJV. MW

From the May 2007 issue of Municipal World

Check out Denis Chamberland's bio on the Municipal World website.

Page last modified on June 30, 2008, at 02:05 PM