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


 
 

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Labour and Employment Legislative Update 2015

December 23, 2015

2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top