Your Corrupt and Stupid Government And You

You get who you vote for:

We Charity won a string of sweetheart contracts prior to cabinet’s 2020 approval of a $43.5 million pandemic grant that prompted a public uproar, records show. A year-long investigation by the Procurement Ombudsman yesterday revealed departments typically called We Charity with confidential contract offers, then worked out the price later: ‘It was an unfair advantage.’ 

 

More:

Federal Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic released the results of his year-long investigation into contracts that WE received from the federal government before the pandemic. That means contracts given to WE before the youth volunteer project proposed last year that would have been worth more than $43 million to WE and would have cost taxpayers upwards of $900 million.

Jeglic found several contracts, none of them large, but with a disturbing pattern of apparent favouritism towards WE. ...

On at least one occasion, Jeglic found, department officials suggested to WE an amount it might bid that could beat out any rivals.

And on another occasion, the ombudsman appears to have found that the cost of a contract awarded to WE was established after the charity had been given the deal.

These contracts: 

17. The estimated cost of 4 of the 6 contracts was significantly below the threshold amount specified in section 6(b) of the Government Contracts Regulations, at the time of the procurement.

• For the CSPS contract—Speaker Services for the event entitled: International Day of Persons with Disabilities, it appeared the estimated cost of $11,300 including tax was established after the quote was received from WE Charity. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the GAC contract—WE Day California, it appeared the department did establish an estimated cost prior to contacting WE Charity to discuss the proposed contract. However, the amount of the estimate, $10,000 (USD) was not documented until after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the PCO contract for the Leaders’ Debates Commission advisory board, it appeared the estimated cost of $17,050.34 including tax was established after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $25,000.
• For the PHAC contract—National Child Day Celebrations: Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it appeared the estimated cost of $24,990 was established after WE Charity had been contacted. The threshold limit at the time of the procurement was $40,000.

18. The estimated cost of the other 2 contracts was at or just below the $25,000 or $40,000 Government Contracts Regulations threshold for non-competitive contracting in effect at the time of the procurement.

• For the GAC contract—International Development Week 2020 learning event, it appeared that the estimated cost was established after GAC had contacted WE Charity for a proposal. Communication on the file showed that WE Charity had originally proposed a price that exceeded the $40,000 exception threshold in effect at the time; however, following a discussion with GAC, WE Charity removed a proposed activity and submitted a new proposal with the price reduced to $40,000. Documentation provided to OPO did not indicate why GAC requested this change.
• For the PCO contract—Facilitation services for the Canada Youth Summit, the estimated cost of $24,996 recorded in the contract file was equal to the price proposed by WE Charity and was marginally below the $25,000 exception limit in effect at the time.

19. Contacting a prospective supplier, sharing information about an upcoming requirement with that supplier, and requesting pricing information from that supplier before establishing and documenting the estimated cost of a contract, represents a threat to the fairness of the procurement process and should not be repeated. In the event the supplier’s proposed price exceeds the threshold for non-competitive contracts set forth in the Government Contracts Regulations,the department may be required to run a competitive process before awarding the contract. In this situation, not all prospective suppliers would be treated equally, as the supplier that was previously contacted for pricing information would have an unfair advantage over other potential suppliers because it received information about the requirement before anyone else. Alternatively, the department may decide to remove some of the goods or services it required to get the estimated cost below the threshold amount. This action would be a manipulation of the exception to competition permitted by the Government Contracts Regulations as the change would be made primarily for the purpose of avoiding competition. The practice of requesting pricing information prior to establishing and documenting the estimated price of a contract should be avoided to ensure the fairness of the procurement process.