1. The salesperson of PMH Insights Software Company of Edmonton approached an official of the municipal district of Parkland County in Alberta several times in 2016, pitching their Government Frameworks strategic management software. Eventually after more than 6 months of trying, County told PMH that they would not buy their software. Later in Jan 2017 County told PMH that they bought another company’s software in Dec 2016. PMH complained through the Bid Protest Mechanism of a trade agreement. 

1. Is this a good or service or construction that is being purchased?

1. Which org category is the County in: Ministry, Crown, or MASH?

1. The County provided a declaration to the arbitrator that it spent $36,700 in 2016 and was planning to spend $28,455 in 2017 on procurement of the software. Which of the trade agreements (NWPTA, CFTA, or CETA) apply to this purchase? Explain Briefly. 

1. If you were the arbitrator, what would be your decision? Explain Briefly. 

(3 marks)

1. In 2011, SK Ministry of Highways and Transportation put out an Invitation to Tender (ITT) for supply, fabrication, delivery and erection of structural steel for a bridge over South Saskatchewan River near St. Louis, SK. The ITT was a typical long construction solicitation document. Two parts of it are of significance:

1.  CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 Further to General Provision 1200.3, the Contractor shall be certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau to the requirements of CSA Standard W47.1-92, Division 1.

The tender call also contained a privilege clause that stated:

The Minister reserves the right to reject all Bids and cancel the competition without any liability.

Two bidders bid: Surespan and Structal. Surespan’s bid was lower but the part for erection of steel parts was twice the estimate of the Ministry. The Ministry was about to award the contract to Surespan when it found out that Surespan did not employ any welders with the required certification. So, the Ministry considered Surespan’s bid noncompliant. In fact, it found a reason to find the other bid also noncompliant. Therefore, it cancelled the tender and re-tendered it in two parts: (i) Supply, fabrication, and delivery of structural steel and (ii) the erection of structural steel. Surespan filed a lawsuit against the Ministry for using bad faith. Also, Surespan claimed that the requirement for welding certificate applies to the actual work (performance Contract B, not bidding Contract A) and that it was going to employ certified Welders if and when it was awarded the contract.

1. Was Surespan’s bid noncompliant?  Briefly explain, distinguishing between Contract A and Contract B. 

b. Could the ministry have used the privilege clause above and cancelled the original tender? Briefly explain. 

c. What is your judgement in this case?

(4 marks)

6. For each of the following scenarios, briefly explain (i) why it is ethical or unethical, and (ii) how you should react or have reacted. 

1. You need to buy chairs for your org. You prepared a detailed RFQ and sent it out to a large number of potential suppliers. Ten days left to the closing date for the bidding process and nine suppliers have already bid. The bidders have started calling to see how their bids ranked. You answer vaguely, e.g., “you are not the lowest bidder, but fairly competitive” or “you are the lowest bidder, but others are getting close by revising their bid”.  

1. You are the purchasing agent for a local School division. The transporation manager has asked for purchase of two 1-ton pickup trucks. You find out that he wants to pay for and use one of two trucks for his personal use. 

1. You are the purchasing manager for an org. You find out that one of your buyers has been buying stationery products from a company that is partly owned by his brother-in-law. 

1. You are a professor at a university, deciding which textbook to use for a course. The publisher of a textbook that you are considering has offered you $250 to review their textbook and provide a short appraisal of its strengths and weaknesses.