Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s really interesting that we had a Minister’s statement on
procured services today because that’s the focus of my Member’s statement today.
An issue recently came to my office from a constituent and it’s one which I believe highlights inefficiencies and problems in the GNWT procurement process.
This summer a tender was let by Public Works and Services for goods. Two businesses responded to that tender, one northern, one southern. The tender was awarded to the southern firm, but for a premium of almost $60,000. Yes, the northern firm bid $57.7 thousand less than the winning bidder.
Now, I believe that all MLAs and the Minister, as well, want to maximize business to the NWT rather than to southern suppliers, and I believe we all want to ensure that northern businesses survive and keep Northerners in the North. I also believe that we all support a fair process, but this and other examples Members have heard about show that our procurement process is flawed and perhaps unfair.
So what happened here? Well, apparently based on failure to meet specifications, this requisition for goods went to a southern supplier, even though the southern bid was 67 percent higher than the northern bid.
The tender allowed for equivalencies but failed to clearly identify what that meant. The failure to meet the specifications deemed the northern bid unresponsive or non-compliant, even though the variations from the specs were seemingly minor. Under our rules, an unresponsive bid is automatically eliminated.
Because of our policy and our rigid tender process, the government turned down an $85,000 northern bid for a $143,000 southern bid without any opportunity for minor negotiations to address variances in the northern bid.
Tender processes should be rigid and should be fair, but in this case, the way the tender was written forced the northern bidder to be unresponsive. If any tender requires a very specific product, then say so. Don’t make the bidder painstakingly produce a bid for a tender which the government knows full well he cannot meet.
Procurement services must use language and processes which ensure that we provide the opportunity for northern firms to bid on any tender. Not an advantage, Mr. Speaker, but the opportunity for an equal bid.
Taxpayers are going to have to eat the extra $58,000 in this case, and the northern supplier has lost $85,000 worth of business. It begs the question: could the southern bid have been 200 percent higher and still be accepted? Maybe 300 percent higher?
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted