Audio Visual Production - RFIC # 2

Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: Best Overall  Proposal
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements: 
REQUEST FOR INDUSTRY COMMENTS (RFIC) # 2
REQUEST FOR SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS FOR AUDIO-VISUAL 
PRODUCTION SERVICES 
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

Responses must be submitted by 
2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time on August 7, 2014


INTRODUCTION

This second RFIC is a result of the first industry day. This
RFIC is to seek industry input on the proposed RFSA evaluation
and selection criteria and the subsequent selection and
evaluation criteria for the Supply Arrangement Request for
Proposals (SARFP).

The purpose of the second Information Session is to finalize the
evaluation criteria. The second Information Session is intended
to be an open forum allowing PWGSC to communicate with
interested suppliers and seek their input on the the proposed
evaluation criteria. 

Suppliers interested in participating in the second information
session are asked to provide the names, e-mail addresses and
phone numbers of all proposed attendees with their RFIC
submission. It is anticipated that the Information Session will
be held at 350 Albert Street in Ottawa on August 14, 2014 at
10:00AM.

1.	NATURE OF REQUEST FOR INDUSTRY COMMENTS

This is not a bid solicitation. This RFIC will not result in the
award of any contract, therefore, potential suppliers of any
goods or services described in the attached project outline
should not earmark stock or facilities, nor allocate resources,
as a result of any information contained in this RFIC. Nor will
this RFIC result in the creation of any source list, therefore,
whether or not any potential supplier responds to this RFIC will
not preclude that supplier from participating in any future
procurement. Also, the procurement of any of the goods and
services described in this RFIC will not necessarily follow this
RFIC. This RFIC is simply intended to solicit feedback from
industry with respect to the matters described in this RFIC.

2.		NATURE AND FORMAT OF RESPONSES REQUESTED

Respondents are requested to provide their comments, concerns
and, where applicable, recommendations on how the requirements
or objectives described in the project outline could be
satisfied. Respondents should explain any assumptions they make
in their responses.

3.		RESPONSE COSTS

Canada will not reimburse any respondent for expenses incurred
in responding to this RFIC.

4.			TREATMENT OF RESPONSES:

i.	Use of Responses:  Responses will not be formally evaluated.
However, the responses received may be used by Canada to modify
procurement strategies or any draft documents contained in this
RFIC. Canada will review all responses received by the RFIC
closing date. Canada may, in its discretion, review responses
received after the RFIC closing date.

ii.	Review Team:  A review team composed of representatives from
PWGSC will review the responses on behalf of Canada. Canada
reserves the right to hire any independent consultant, or use
any Government resources, which it deems necessary to review any
response. Not all members of the review team will necessarily
review all responses.

iii.	Confidentiality:  Respondents should mark any portions of
their response that they consider proprietary or confidential.
Canada will treat those portions of the responses as
confidential to the extent permitted by the Access to
Information Act.
iv.	Follow-up Activity:  Canada may, in its discretion, contact
any respondents to follow up with additional questions or for
clarification of any aspect of a response.

5.		CONTENT OF THIS RFIC

This RFIC contains the evaluation criteria roughly based on the
previous Request for Supply Arrangements (RFSA). This document
remains a work in progress and respondents should not assume
that new clauses or requirements will not be added to any bid
solicitation that is ultimately published by Canada. Nor should
respondents assume that none of the clauses or requirements will
be deleted or revised. Comments regarding any aspect of the
proposed procurement are welcome.

6.		ENQUIRIES

Because this is not a bid solicitation, Canada will not
necessarily respond to enquiries in writing or by circulating
answers to all potential suppliers. However, respondents with
questions regarding this RFIC may direct their enquiries to:

Robert Pelot at (613) 990-6842 or by email at:
robert.pelot@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca

7.			SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES

i.	Time and Place for Submission of Responses:  Suppliers
interested in providing a response should deliver it directly to
the Contracting Authority by the time and date indicated on page
1 of this solicitation document. The preferred method of
response is by e-mail at: 

robert.pelot@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca

ii.	Responsibility for Timely Delivery: Timely delivery and
correct direction of responses is the sole responsibility of the
respondent. PWGSC will not assume or have transferred to it
those responsibilities.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
Contracting Officer named above.

8.			SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

Is the evaluation criteria for the Supply Arrangement
specifically appropriate for this commodity?
Is the evaluation criteria for the subsequent RFPs under the
Supply Arrangement (SARFPs) specifically appropriate for this
commodity?
Do you have any specific suggestions regarding the evaluation
criteria and selection methodology for the RFSA and subsequent
RFPs?

9.		REQUEST FOR SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS:

	Please see the following evaluation criteria for reference.


Audio Visual Production Services
Request For Supply Arrangements (RFSA)

Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Supply Arrangement


EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF SELECTION 

1.	EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Offers will be assessed in accordance with the entire
requirement of the Request for Supply Arrangement including all
of the criteria stipulated herein.
An evaluation team composed of representatives of Canada will
evaluate the arrangements.

1.1.	TECHNICAL EVALUATION

1.1.1	MANDATORY TECHNICAL CRITERIA

	M.1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE FIRM
The Supplier MUST identify the owners and management of the firm
and the legal incorporated name as well as the organizational
structure.  	

	M.2	INTERNET SITE 
Suppliers MUST have an Internet site that is accessible by
Client Departments and Agencies. The purpose of this Internet
site is to provide information on the services available and the
Supplier's qualifications to provide those services. Therefore,
in order to meet this mandatory requirement, the Supplier MUST
have an Internet site and provide the active Internet address.  

	M.3	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (The demo samples will be rated
under R.1)
The Supplier MUST demonstrate their experience by submitting one
(1) USB key demo of at least four (4) samples produced and
completed within the last five (5) years. The total running time
of the samples MUST not exceed twenty (20) minutes in length.
The productions MUST have been completed entirely by the
Supplier in its original language under a contract with the
public sector or private industry.

One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
produce a video based audio-visual production for internal or
external audiences for government (federal, provincial or
municipal), for non-government organizations (NGA's) or be a
corporate video.	
One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
produce an audio-visual production that was tailored and posted
to the Internet or adapted for Internet use. 	
One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
work in both official languages (English and French).
Productions that have voice-overs, fully narrated or subtitled
are not acceptable to demonstrate bilingual capability. For
added details, a bilingual production is one in which there is
both English and French equally and substantively represented in
the same production. An adaptation is where after a production
is produced in one language, it is then adapted into the other
language taking into consideration the social and cultural
differences of the target language population. An adaptation is
not a straight translation. 
	
OFFERS NOT MEETING ALL OF THE MANDATORY TECHNICAL CRITERIA WILL
BE GIVEN NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

	1.1.2	POINT RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA

	R.1	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM AND QUALITY OF SAMPLES PROVIDED
		(Maximum  100 points - Minimum 70 points)

The Supplier shall be assessed against the demo samples provided
in accordance with M.3. 

	The USB demo should be able to be played on any laptop computer.

	The demo should be menu driven.

	To better understand the samples submitted for the mandatory
criteria M3., the following information should also be provided
for each sample. Please complete the Video Demo - "Proposed
Project Fact Sheet" located in Appendix "2" . 

Client;
Client contact;
Description and purpose of production;
Target audience(s);
Creative approach;
Production dates; 
Production budget;
Project outcomes.
	
The video demo will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:
	
	R.1.1	Demo samples demonstrate creative and technical
excellence (40 points).
	
	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria: your
approach (is it attractive, creative, innovative or
appropriate); the quality of images; quality and effectiveness
of cinematography, the use of special effects and graphics; use
of camera angles; lighting; editing; and effective use of music
and sound.  

	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the demo
samples:

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
established minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum.  All of the
above mentionned criteria are acceptable. Meets the minimum for
technical standards. Demo demonstrates some creativity and
innovation. 
Good (0.8 ):  Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one
or two criteria that are very good. Approach demonstrates
creativity and innovation. 
Very Good (0.9): The majority of the criteria are very good. One
or two criteria may be excellent. Approach demonstrates very
good creativity and innovation without being outstanding.
Outstanding (1): Very unique, bold, and creative approach. Has
excellent quality and use of images. Outstanding cinematography.
Demo demonstrates excellent use of special effects and graphics
and lighting. Has very appropriate use of music and sound.

R.1.2	The effective use of treatment, script, language and
visual techniques to communicate the themes and messages. (40
points)
	
	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria:
engaging and complete storyline, clear script, appropriate use
of language, quality of translation, effective communication of
content and messages both in narration and on-camera and use of
other techniques to get the message across. The success in
conveying messages in both English and French is equivalent. 

	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the
Treatment, script, language and visual techniques:

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
established minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. All of the
above mentionned criteria are acceptable, and meets the
established minimum. The treatment, script, language and
technique adequately help convey themes and messages. 
Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one
or two criteria that are very good. Treatment, script, language
and technique help convey the themes and messages. 
Very Good (0.9): The majority of the criteria are very good. One
or two criteria may be excellent. Treatment, script, language
and techniques effectively communicate themes and messages
without being outstanding.
Outstanding (1): Outstanding delivery of content, themes and
messages. Treatment, script, language and techniques are
communicated very well, both in narration and on-camera.
Appropriate techniques were used. 
	
	R.1.3	Demonstrate a wide variety of visual and dramatic
devices, such as: graphic animation sequences;
typography/on-screen text; motion graphics and animations; still
imagery; imported (stock) film footage; off-camera and on-camera
narration; music; sound and special effects (10 points).
	
	At a minimum, we are looking for the use of six (6) of the ten
(10) above-mentioned visual or dramatic devices.

	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the visual
and dramatic devices:

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
established minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. At least six
(6) of the listed devices are effectively used, and the demo
meets the established minimum. 
Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with two
(2) or three (3) of the devices that are very good. 
Very Good (0.9):  The majority of the criteria are very good.
Four (4) or five (5) criteria may be excellent, without being
outstanding.  
Outstanding (1): A very effective blend of six or more visual or
dramatic devices and are relevant to the subject matter. The
quality and effectiveness of at least six (6) devices are
outstanding.

R.1.4 	The audio-visual production outcomes. (10 points) 

	At a minimum, the Supplier should describe the success of the
projects. What was the feedback from the audience, if any? We
are aware that many Suppliers are not in control of evaluating
the projects success/use, nor always able to monitor audience
feedback, however a written and signed client testimonial on how
the video's were used and received would suffice. 
	
	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the outcome
of the videos:

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
established minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum.  The supplier
communicated in an approriate manner the outcome of the
projects.  
Good (0.8): The supplier communicated its subject matter in a
manner that is rather effective and appropriate of the outcome
of the projects. 
Very Good (0.9):  The supplier communicated its subject matter
that is very effective and appropriate of the outcome of the
projects. Very good details were provided. The client
testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace.
Outstanding (1): The supplier communicated its subject matter
that is excellent and appropriate of the outcome of the
projects. Outstanding details were provided. The client
testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace.

2.	BASIS OF SELECTION

2.1	Minimum Point Rating

To be declared responsive, a supplier must:

comply with all the requirements of the Request for Supply
Arrangement (RFSA); and
meet all mandatory technical evaluation criteria; and
obtain the required minimum of 70 percent of the available
points for each rated criteria and an overall passing mark of 80
points on a scale of 100 points.

Suppliers not meeting (a) or (b) or (c) above will be declared
non-responsive.  

All fully responsive suppliers and all fully responsive
Aboriginal suppliers will be listed on the "Standard" list of
Supply Arrangement Holders. A separate list will be created for
Aboriginal suppliers only under the Set-Aside Program for
Aboriginal Business. 

There is no limit to the number of Supply Arrangement's to be
put in place.


DETAILED EVALUATION PROCESS FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
ISSUED UNDER THE SUPPLY ARRANGEMENT (SARFP)


1.	EVALUATION CRITERIA
The evaluation criteria will be delineated in the request for
proposal the Supply Arrangement Request for Proposals (SARFP). 
Evaluation criteria will be categorized either as mandatory or
as rated evaluation criteria.  Associated weighting factors with
regard to rated requirements will be identified.  Evaluation
criteria can be subject to both a mandatory and a point rated
evaluation system.

1.1	Mandatory Evaluation Criteria 
Mandatory evaluation criteria identify at the outset the minimum
requirements for bids to be considered. Mandatory evaluation
criteria are evaluated on a simple pass/fail basis. When
mandatory evaluation criteria are used, the SARFP will clearly
indicate that failure to meet any of the mandatory criteria will
render the bid non-compliant and that it will be given no
further consideration. Mandatory criteria will be expressed by
using imperative verbs such as "must" and "will". 
 
 1.2	Point Rated Evaluation Criteria 
The SARFP will clearly state all evaluation factors and their
relative importance. Point rated evaluation criteria will be
used to establish the minimum requirements (by setting a passing
mark) that a bid must meet to be considered a valid and
responsive proposal. The evaluation can be set to include an
overall pass mark for proposals or pass mark for each individual
evaluation criterion, and/or a group of criteria.
 
Point rated criteria identify those elements that can be
evaluated on a variety of characteristics to determine the
relative technical merit of each proposal.
 
 2.	BASIS OF SELECTION 
The highest point rated proposal within a specified budget will
be selected. With this selection method, the supplier who has
provided a firm price that is within the project budget and who
has received the highest point rating for their technical
proposal will be recommended for contract award. 

 3.	BASIS OF PAYMENT
 A Firm Price contract will be used.  Multiple invoice payments
will be permitted.

4.	STEPS IN THE RFP PROCESS FOR ALL COMPETED REQUIREMENTS
The SARFP as issued by the PWGSC Contracting Authority will
include a Statement of Work (SOW), the evaluation criteria, the
basis of selection and a bid closing date. The SARFP will be
sent electronically to SA Holders via e-mail. 
 
 An SARFP Under the Supply Arrangements is used for requirements
valued at more than $25,000 but less than $400,000 excluding
applicable taxes. Supply Arrangement Holders will be invited to
submit a proposal for this solicitation process based on the
following selection process:




Two Suppliers picked on a rotational basis; and
Two Supply Arrangement holders as recommended by the Client; and
One Supply Arrangement Holder selected at random by PWGSC.  The
"random" selection will be made using the RAND () function in
Microsoft Excel, all of which are determined in accordance with
the Basis of Selection at article 2 in Part 4 of the
solicitation document.
 	
NOTE:  The Suppliers will be given 48 hours from the time they
are invited to bid to confirm their intention to bid. If a
supplier intends not to bid on a particular invitation, they
must advise the contracting officer who will remove them from
that invitation and pick an other supplyer using the random
selection criteria identified above. This will only be done once
to avoid having to extend the bid closing date.

As a result and as much as possible, all SARFPs will have at
least five bidders to maintain fair competition.
	
Overall, individual contracts under the Supply Arrangements must
not exceed $400,000.00 (Goods and Services Tax or Harmonized
Sales Tax excluding).
 
 As indicated in the SARFP, the SA Holder will be required to
submit a proposal within the specified time frame. The time
frame will be determined based on the complexity of the
requirement.

As requested, the SA Holder will submit a proposal only to
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Bid
Receiving Unit by the date, time and place indicated in the
Mini-RFP or RFP. The Bidder's proposal is not intended to
duplicate the SOW, but rather to offer a description of how and
when the Bidder proposes to satisfy the requirement, along with
the proposed prices for doing so. 
 
Bidders may request written clarification of SARFP requirements.
Such requests for clarification will be sent to the PWGSC
Contracting Authority though electronic means or through written
correspondence by the date indicated in the SARFP and within the
parameters stated in the SARFP.
 
The PWGSC Contracting Authority will answer clarification
requests to all bidders. As a result of clarification requests,
the PWGSC Contracting Authority will determine if any revisions
to SOW requirements or evaluation criteria is required, and if
necessary, issue an amendment to the Mini-RFP/RFP. 

5.	EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
The proposals will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation
factors identified in the SARFP. 











SAMPLE SARFP EVALUATION CRITERIA

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

M.1     FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
The Bidder MUST submit a financial proposal with a firm price
not exceeding $XXXXX (Goods and Services Tax or Harmonized Sales
Tax extra, as appropriate). The maximum amount includes travel
expenses.		

The Bidder must submit a detailed pricing proposal (indicating
units e.g. days, weeks, hours, dollar rates, etc.) that
correlates with the production schedule and resource allocation
of the project. The Bidder must also provide sufficient budget
details in terms of categories, line items, unit prices/rates,
level of effort, with consistent budget structures and breakdown
for each production phase.

The Bidder must treat any travel expenses as a separate item.
Note that the Bidder's fee should include the travel expenses
associated with attending mandatory meetings. Travel costs
should be calculated according to Treasury Board Travel Rates
and Policies which can be found at the following weblink:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TBM_113/c-eng.asp

1.1.2	RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA

Proposals will be evaluated and scored in accordance with
specific evaluation criteria as detailed in this section. To be
considered compliant, bidders must obtain the required minimum
of 70 percent of the points for each rated criteria and an
overall passing mark of 96 points. The rating is performed on a
scale of 120 points. Proposals scoring less than 70 percent in
one of these criterion will not be given further consideration.

	NOTE: Percentage factors will be the basis used to allocate
points for all rated requirements. The number of points will be
calculated depending on the total value given for each
criterion. For example, if we give 0.7 as a score for R.1.1 (35
points X 0.7 = 24.5 points), this is equal to 70% of the total
value given for that criterion. We cannot deviate from the
established scoring grid. For example, we could not give a score
of 0.75 (75%). We would have to choose between a 0.7 or a 0.8
(70% or 80%).

CREATIVE APPROACH AND TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY (MAXIMUM : 70 POINTS)
	
	R.1 will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:

R.1.1:	Understanding of the scope and challenges of project and
degree to which these are addressed.  (Maximum 35 points -
Minimum 24.5 points)

	At a minimum, we are looking for: details and examples of how
you demonstrate your understanding of the project's scope and
challenges; how your understanding of the scope and the
challenges are reflected in the approach.

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable and/or the proposal
did not demonstrate an understanding of the scope and/or most of
the information was transcribed from the Statement of Work (SOW)
without providing additional information. Less than established
minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. Acceptable
understanding of the project's scope and challenges. The
approach outlines challenges of project. Methodology addresses
the objectives.
Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum. Good
understanding of the project's scope and challenges. The
approach provides a good outline of challenges with some
solutions.  Methodology stands a good chance of achieving the
objectives.
Very Good (0.9): Very good understanding of the project's scope
and challenges. The approach is good and provides analysis of
challenges with solutions. Approach and methodology stands a
very good chance of achieving the objectives.
Outstanding (1): Outstanding understanding of the project's
scope and challenges. The approach is outstanding and provides
excellent analysis of challenges with well thought out
solutions. Approach and methodology will effectively achieve the
objectives.

R.1.2: The outline of the proposed production treatment is easy
to visualize.  (Maximum 35 points - Minimum 24.5 points)  

	At a minimum, we are looking for: clear visualization of both
the structure and the creative approach of the production
treatment.

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable and/or the story idea
is average and/or not appropriate and/or it is unlikely to
achieve the goal(s) of the project. Less than established
minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. It is easy to
visualize the structure of the story and the creative approach
of the production treatment. The overall structure is fine
without being perfect. The story idea is average. 
Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum. It is easy
to visualize the structure of the story and the creative
approach of the treatment. The story idea is good. Content is
accurate or mostly accurate.
Very Good (0.9): It is very easy to visualize the story and the
creative approach of the production treatment. The overall
structure holds very well from the beginning to the end. The
story idea is strong. Content is accurate or mostly accurate.
The look-and-feel of this production is obvious. A good script
may also be provided. 
Outstanding (1): Visualization of the video is crystal clear
throughout and the creative approach of the production
treatment. The overall structure holds very well from the
beginning to the end. The story idea is very strong. Content is
accurate. Other means are used to help visualize the
content/look-and-feel of the video such as mock-ups and/or
illustrated storyboards. A strong script may also be provided.

	PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
	(MAXIMUM : 30 POINTS)

	R.2 will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:

	
	The Bidder should propose a preliminary project management
approach that provides flexibility and considers client needs as
described in this RFP. 

It should reflect how the Bidder proposes to work in
collaboration with the Project Manager and Project Team on the
development of the treatment and production and outline the key
areas that require input from the Client. It should illustrate
how the Bidder will ensure that performance, quality, scheduled
goals are achieved, and illustrate a detailed work plan and
schedule that identifies the significant milestones and
deliverables within the development process.  
	
	The following criteria will be evaluated:

R.2.1	Project Management Approach (Maximum 30 points - Minimum
21 points)
	Provide a detailed description of the proposed project
management approach and procedures, schedule controls, risk
mitigation, as well as the tools and techniques that will be
used to plan, organize, direct and control the Project including
the milestones and deliverables. The project management approach
should also outline how the Bidder proposes to work in
collaboration with the Project Authority to insure sufficient
time for review and Government approval process.

Explain why your project plan will ensure smooth delivery of
your proposed approach and methodology.
	At a minimum, we are looking for: Project management approach
that provides sufficient details on process, processes for
working with the Project Authority, schedule controls, timelines
suitable and realistic; risk mitigation, planning tools and
techniques that will be put in place and used to plan, organize,
direct and control the project

Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
insufficient.
Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
provided and/or technically not acceptable.  Less than
established minimum.
Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. Details on
process; schedule controls; planning tools techniques are
minimal. Good techniques to be put in place and used to plan,
organize, direct and control the project. Correctly identifies
risk areas and provided some mitigation strategies. Timelines
are mostly realistic, and include client involvement in plan and
approach. 
Good (0.8): Project management approach has sufficient details
on process; schedule controls; planning tools and techniques.
Good techniques to be put in place and used to plan, organize,
direct and control the project. Correctly identifies risk areas
and provides good mitigation strategies. Timelines are
realistic, and include client involvement in plan and approach.
Approach for working with Project Authority is good.
Very Good (0.9): Project management approach has complete
details on process; schedule controls; planning tools and
techniques. Very efficient techniques to be put in place and
used to plan, organize, direct and control the project.
Correctly identifies risk areas and provides very good
mitigation strategies. Timelines are suitable and realistic, and
include good level of client involvement in plan and approach.
Approach for working with Project Authority is very good.
Outstanding (1): Project management approach has the most
complete details on process; schedule controls; and planning
tools and techniques. Very efficient and innovative techniques
to be put in place and used to plan, organize, direct and
control the project. Correctly identifies risk areas and
provides clear and valid mitigation strategies. Timelines are
suitable and very realistic while offering flexibility and
include excellent client involvement in plan and approach.
Approach for working with the Project Authority is flexible.

Delivery Date: Above-mentioned

The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any
procurement.

Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.