There is an increased need to become more specific regarding "justification for sole source", particularly on the GCR exception that applies. The Auditor General continues to express concern and the need is reflected in specific direction to include the specific exception in each ACAN. CSC should encourage CRBs to require contract submissions involving sole source to include the specific GCR exception that applies and to include the exception in the record of decision. This step should lead to tighter justifications and clearer compliance with GCR.

The Manager, Contracting and Materiel Services shall require the Regional Contract Review Boards to include, in the contract submissions, the specific GCR exception that applies and to include the exception in the record of decision where applicable. This action is completed.

A clear statement that identifies the specific GCR exception to competitive tendering requirements that applies should be provided on the contract file as well as in the ACAN. In most cases this requirement can be met by adding a statement along the lines of "there is only one source that is qualified and capable of meeting this requirement". The statement must be supported with information describing how the conclusion was reached.

Plan in place to develop a reference document for Procurement & Contracting Specialists to ensure that we include all information required for ACAN postings. This would include all the requirements necessary and include:

• Specific Government Contract Regulations (GCR) exception from competitive process.
• Sole Source justification.
• Include names and addresses of Contractors.
• Summary of Capabilities.

The reference document was finalized on July 2, 2002.

Postings are now calculated at 16 days to ensure minimum timeframe of 15 days is met. Completed.

All information regarding the Contractor will be posted. Completed

Ongoing monitoring and detailed scrutiny of the region's ACANs will be conducted by NHQ until further notice.

The CRB should comply with Commissioner's Directive 240 by explicitly approving/rejecting contract proposals. The Chairperson of the CRB should sign the weekly CRB record of decisions.

Effective immediately, RSD (P) is complying and ensuring that the Regional Contract Review Board minutes are signed weekly. A new draft terms of reference was completed on September 27th, 2002, and will be presented to the Regional Management Committee by the end of November 2002.

Additional training will be implemented. A new training guide encompassing all procurement activities will be completed by November 29, 2002. We anticipate that the training is to be completed for all sites by the end of May 2003.

Consideration should be given to requiring a "no comment" response from all board members as opposed to accepting a nil response as meaning acceptance.

RSD (P) added a line to the RCRB electronic version that advises the requirement for a "no comment" response as opposed to a "nil" response, so that everyone is clear on the meanings.

RSD (P) implemented a process to notify approvals/non-approvals of the decisions taken. Disagreements will be addressed on the RCRB with clear interpretation from Procurement and Contracting Specialists based on policies.

A revised format for submissions should be developed that will paint a complete picture of the proposed contract so that CRB members will know what they are being asked to support. The format should include as a minimum: contract number, title, period, expected value, description, method of procurement (open tender, sole source, aboriginal), sole source justification and specific GCR exception (6a, 6b, 6c, or 6d) if applicable, confirmation that funds are available, confirmation that CSC's authorities are observed, confirmation that the services are required, and confirmation that government policies including employer- employee relationship are observed. An alternative would be to put the actual CSC Form 286 "Request for a Contract/Contract Amendment/Extension" and any attachments on the Intranet for review by CRB members.

When the contract proposal involves a sole source award, CSC Form 286 should indicate the GCR exception that applies i.e. 6a, 6b, 6c, or 6d. There should also be an explanation justifying the application of the exception, and a justification for the selection of the proposed contractor. The CRB should explicitly specify the GCR exception for competitive requirements that applies (e.g. 6a) on the Record of Decision.

A regional meeting was held with all Chiefs of Materiel management during which they were advised of the requirements of this recommendation. Further, a memo was sent by e-mail to all projects authorities in the region reinforcing the requirements outlined in the recommendation. Action was completed on the 26th of April 2002.

Consideration should be given to broadening the membership of the CRB to ensure both a broad perspective and interests.

Effective May 30^th 2002, the Senior Deputy Commissioner assumed the role of the Chair of the CRB. The other members remain the same, the Assistant Commissioner Corporate Services, the Director of Operations, a representative from Legal Services and the Manager, Contracting and Materiel Services.

Furthermore it was agreed that any request for contract from an NHQ manager would be signed off by the appropriate cross-functional manager when applicable for an expert subject such as Informatics, Communications and Human resources.