Skip to content

Client Update: Government of Canada Improvements to Procurement Integrity Provisions

The New Public Contracting World

As part of an ongoing initiative aimed at ensuring Canada only does business with ethical suppliers, Public Works and Government Services Canada (“PWGSC”) has introduced changes to its Integrity Regime and Code of Conduct for Public Procurement. A new Integrity Regime (the “New Regime”) for procurement and real property transactions came into effect on July 3, 2015, replacing the former PWGSC Integrity Framework (the “Old Regime”). It applies to real property contracts, goods and services contracts and construction contracts that are completed by federal government departments and agencies as identified in Schedule I, I.1 and II of the Canada Financial Administration Act.

The New Regime provides flexibility and seeks to alleviate the supplier’s burden. Its key features include: reduced debarment from an automatic 10 years to a possibility of five years, a more contextual approach regarding affiliates, a five year debarment for contracting with an ineligible supplier, and incentives to self-report transgressions. For more information on the New Regime see our more detailed assessment here. The New Regime can be found here.

Key Features of the New Regime

Ineligibility Offences
If a supplier or members of its board of directors are convicted or discharged (either absolutely or conditionally) of any of the listed offences (or similar foreign offences) in the previous three years it is prohibited from doing business with the Canadian Government. The New Regime now explicitly states that any existing contracts between the supplier and the federal government can be terminated. There is no minimum dollar amount for committing any of the listed offences.

Some examples of the listed offences include: payment of a contingency fee to a person to whom the Lobbying Act applies; corruption, collusion, bid-rigging or any other anti-competitive activity under the Competition Act; money laundering; income and excise tax evasion; bribing a foreign public official, and secret commissions.

Period of Ineligibility
The period of ineligibility will last for 10 years unless the supplier applies for reduced ineligibility to have this period lessened by up to five years. Reduced ineligibility may be granted if the supplier can demonstrate that it cooperated with the authorities and it has undertaken corrective action. This would require an administrative agreement. Debarment will be permanent if a supplier has been convicted of fraud against the Canadian Government under either the Criminal Code or the Financial Administration Act, unless the supplier obtains a record suspension.

Offences by Affiliates
If an affiliate commits one of the listed offences, the PWGSC will conduct an assessment to determine the degree to which the supplier exercised control over the affiliate. For the assessment, the PWGSC will look at whether or not the supplier assented to, acquiesced in, directed, influenced, authorized, or participated in the commission or omission of the offences committed by the affiliate. This is a significant change from the Old Regime in which a conviction of an affiliate was an absolute bar to a supplier dealing with the federal government.

Bid Requirement
A supplier’s bid must contain certification that it, its directors and its affiliates have not been charged, convicted, or absolutely/conditionally discharged of any of the listed offences (or similar foreign offences) within the past three years.

Contractors at Risk of Debarment
A supplier cannot subcontract with another supplier who has been deemed ineligible. The PWGSC will provide a list of ineligible suppliers, and suppliers are required to verify its subcontractor’s eligibility. If a supplier enters into a subcontract with an ineligible supplier, the prime supplier will be debarred for five years. Suppliers should now create and follow strict due diligence processes to screen any potential subcontractors.

Suspensions
If a supplier is charged with or admits guilt to any of the listed offences, the PWGSC could suspend the supplier from doing business with the Canadian Government for 18 months. After a suspension, there is no mechanism by which the supplier could be compensated if the supplier is exonerated.

Advance Determination of Debarment Status
At any time, a supplier is able to request an advance determination of its ineligibility. The request must contain an accurate account any unfavourable information regarding the supplier. This is meant to incentivize suppliers to disclose its own transgressions earlier because cooperation will be regarded favourably. The advanced determination is final and binding with only the option for a limited re-evaluation through judicial review.

International Implications
In determining whether a supplier will be deemed ineligible based solely on a foreign conviction, the New Regime will scrutinize the foreign charge and compare it with the Canadian charge to determine if debarment is appropriate. This assessment must be made by an independent third party.

Application
The New Regime does not operate retroactively. It applies to contracts entered into and procurements in process as of July 3, 2015. It does not affect pre-existing contracts. The PWGSC will re-assess the eligibility of suppliers who have been deemed ineligible under the Old Regime.

Administrative Agreements
An Administrative Agreement is an agreement between the supplier and the PWGSC. As a means of reducing risk, the agreements will be used in situations where caution must be exercised in contracting with a certain supplier. Remedial and compliance measures for eligibility would be included in such an agreement.

Public Interest Exception
There is an exception that operates to retain a debarred supplier when it is in the public interest to do so. Such instances of public interest include: if there is no other contractor capable of the work, if there are emergent national security circumstances, or if the government’s financial interests are in jeopardy.

The foregoing is intended for general information only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have any questions related to these changes, please contact any one of our Business lawyers.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top