PRESS CONFERENCE

MR. DON POWELL'S SPEECH

Monday, March 31st 2008

A year ago I stood here to discuss a contract, worth over $400 million that was going to be awarded by PWGSC, although we had information that suggested there were serious questions about the process through which it was being awarded.

At that time, we knew that the technical scores that were used as the basis for the contract award did not match other information we had about the results. We knew that PWGSC had performed a "reconfirmation" of the evaluation results, which was not a defined part of the process.

For a procurement of this size and importance, these were serious issues, and we requested that an open and transparent review of the process be undertaken by an independent third party. I am happy to say that this position was supported by editorials in several of Canada's leading newspapers, asking for an investigation prior to the contract being awarded.

However, PWGSC refused to consider such a review, and undertook a cover-up of any facts or documents which related to the evaluation process for this RFP. Over the last year, TPG has attempted to get assistance from the various government agencies and functions, such as Access to Information, which are intended to ensure transparency and accountability for government procurements. None of these functions provided any assistance.

However, about a month ago, we obtained documents relating to the evaluation of our proposal. These were not provided directly, but indirectly as a result of a third-party Access to Information request. These documents provide proof that some of the low scores given to TPG in the "official" results were picked out of thin air, and were not based on the scores awarded by the evaluation team.

An analysis of the actual scores assigned by the five evaluators shows that our technical proposal should have been awarded at least 62 out of 65. This would be consistent with the information provided to us by the head of the evaluation team last year.

Instead, the "official" results reduced this score to 57. Since we had a much lower bid price than the other bidders, this change in technical scores made the difference between TPG winning and losing the contract.

PWGSC proceeded to award the contract in late October on the basis of the requirement being "urgent", and due to the importance of this contract in supporting systems that deliver services to millions of Canadians.

In issuing an RFP and by implementing the resultant contract, PWGSC has a legal Duty of Fairness, called Contract 'A', to all bidders to evaluate responses impartially, and to implement the contract as it was defined in the RFP.

As matters unfolded after contract award, we also have serious issues about the implementation of the contract. We know that PWGSC refused to enforce a number of the mandatory requirements defined in the RFP and, again, attempted to cover-up as many of the facts as possible when we raised these concerns.

On top of that, even though we supposedly lost the contract on the basis of inferior technical capabilities, PWGSC has made extensive efforts to induce our technical resources to assist our competitor in meeting the contract requirements. The end result: Canadian taxpayers are forced to pay higher costs for exactly the same individuals TPG would have provided. It is very difficult to see how this makes any sense at all.

The conduct of PWGSC throughout this procurement has harmed not only TPG, but many of our partner companies, and many individuals. Since we have exhausted all challenge mechanisms within the Government, we have been left with no alternative but to take matters to the courts.

We believe that PWGSC has breached contract law in several areas:

Awarding the contract through a questionable process.
Breach of contract through the improper implementation of the new contract.
Unlawful efforts to induce our technical resources to assist in implementing the new contract.

The various issues that I have identified here constitute a Breach of Contract between PWGSC and TPG, and this forms the basis of our legal action against PWGSC.

Minister Fortier has overall responsibility for the operation of PWGSC and for the breach of contract issues raised in our legal proceedings.

There is an important question about why the Minister failed to act on our request for an independent inquiry into this contract last year, which could have avoided this lawsuit. There is also a question about why the procedures within the department are inadequate to ensure public scrutiny of such an important procurement issue, and why documents and information can so easily be hidden from investigation.

Neither the Minister nor the department has seriously responded to any of our concerns to date. Unfortunately, it will be the taxpayers, and not the department, that will ultimately pay the bill for the ethical lapses we have witnessed.

When Minister Fortier stated that "Canadians, rightly so, insist on transparency when governments spend their hard earned dollars", we believe that most Canadians would agree. But now, it seems that these were words without meaning.

I have been in business for over 20 years and worked with the government for many years. Until now, I have always been treated fairly by PWGSC and other Government departments. I would never have imagined we would need to take such a drastic step as filing a lawsuit against the Government, which of course, is a major undertaking, just to get fair treatment. But the facts in this case are clear, and we believe that it is not only in our interests, but also in the public interest that the full truth about this procurement becomes widely known.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE

DISCOURS DE MONSIEUR DON POWELL

Lundi le 31 mars 2008

Il y a un an, je me trouvais ici-même pour parler d'un contrat d'une valeur de 400 millions qui allait être octroyé par TPSGC, même si nous avions appris des choses qui suggéraient que le processus d'adjudication du contrat était fort douteux.

Nous savions alors que les notes techniques utilisées comme fondement pour l'octroi du contrat ne correspondaient pas aux autres renseignements que nous avions à propos des résultats. Nous savions aussi que TPSGC avait procédé à une « reconfirmation » des résultats de l'évaluation, ce qui ne constitue habituellement pas un élément défini du processus.

Pour un achat de cette taille et de cette importance, de sérieuses questions se posaient, et nous avons demandé qu'une révision ouverte et transparente du processus soit faite par une tierce partie indépendante. Je suis heureux de pouvoir dire que cette position a eu le soutien éditorial de plusieurs des principaux journaux canadiens, qui ont demandé la tenue d'une enquête avant l'octroi du contrat.

TPSGC a cependant refusé de considérer une telle révision et a entrepris de camoufler tous les faits et documents ayant trait au processus d'évaluation de cette DP. Au cours de l'année écoulée, TPG a tenté d'obtenir l'assistance des divers organismes et fonctions du gouvernement, tels qu'Accès à l'information, qui sont destinés à assurer transparence et imputabilité pour les achats du gouvernement. Ces fonctions n'ont été d'aucune aide.

Il y environ un mois, cependant, nous avons obtenu des documents sur l'évaluation de notre proposition. Ceux-ci ne nous pas été remis directement mais sont le résultat indirect d'une demande d'accès à l'information faite par une tierce partie. Ces documents apportent la preuve que certaines des notes faibles qui ont été attribuées à TPG dans les résultats « officiels » sont le fruit d'une pure invention et ne se fondent pas sur les notes accordées par l'équipe d'évaluation.

L'analyse des notes réelles accordées par les cinq évaluateurs démontre que notre proposition technique aurait dû obtenir au moins 62 points sur 65. Ceci est cohérent avec l'information que nous avait transmise l'an dernier le chef de l'équipe d'évaluation.

Dans les résultats « officiels », par contre, cette note avait été réduite à 57. Étant donné que le prix de notre soumission était bien inférieur à celui des autres, c'est cette modification des notes techniques qui a fait pour TPG la différence entre remporter le contrat et le perdre.

TPSGC a octroyé le contrat fin octobre, en se fondant sur le fait que le besoin était « urgent » et en raison de l'importance de ce contrat dans le soutien de systèmes qui desservent des millions de Canadiens.

Dans l'émission d'une DP et la mise en œuvre du contrat qui en résulte, TPSGC a le devoir légal , connu sous le nom de Contrat « A », d'agir équitablement envers tous les soumissionnaires, d'évaluer les réponses de façon impartiale et de mettre le contrat en œuvre de la façon dont il a été décrit dans la DP.

De la façon dont les choses se sont déroulées après l'adjudication du contrat, nous avons également de graves questions sur la mise en œuvre du contrat. Nous savons que TPSGC a refusé d'appliquer de nombreuses exigences obligatoires définies dans la DP et a, une fois de plus, tenté de camoufler autant de faits que possible une fois que nous avons exprimé ces préoccupations.

Qui plus est, même si nous avons soi-disant perdu le contrat en raison de capacités techniques inférieures, TPSGC a déployé de gros efforts pour inciter nos ressources techniques à assister notre concurrent dans l'atteinte des exigences du contrat. Le résultat en est que les contribuables canadiens doivent payer plus cher pour exactement les mêmes personnes que TPG aurait fournies. Il est fort difficile de comprendre la logique de tout cela.

La conduite de TPSGC tout au long de ce processus d'approvisionnement a nui non seulement à TPG mais également à beaucoup de sociétés qui sont nos partenaires ainsi qu'à beaucoup de personnes. Étant donné que nous avons épuisé tous les mécanismes de contestation qui existent au sein du gouvernement, nous n'avons plus d'autre choix que de porter l'affaire devant les tribunaux.

Nous considérons que TPSGC a enfreint la loi contractuelle sur plusieurs plans :

Utilisation d'un processus douteux pour l'adjudication du contrat.
Rupture de contrat par la mise en œuvre inappropriée du nouveau contrat.
Efforts illégaux pour inciter notre personnel technique à assister dans la mise en œuvre du nouveau contrat.

Les diverses questions que j'ai identifiées représentent une rupture de contrat entre TPSGC et TPG, et ceci constitue le fondement de notre action en justice contre TPSGC.

Le ministre Fortier a la responsabilité d'ensemble du fonctionnement de TPSGC et des questions de rupture de contrat soulevées dans les procédures légales.

Une question importante se pose, celle de savoir pourquoi le ministre n'a pas donné suite à notre demande l'an dernier d'une enquête indépendante sur ce contrat, ce qui aurait permis d'éviter la poursuite judiciaire. Il faut également se demander pourquoi les procédures utilisées au sein du département sont insuffisantes pour assurer l'examen public d'une question d'approvisionnement aussi importante, et pourquoi les documents et l'information peuvent si facilement être soustraits à enquête.

Ni le ministre ni le ministère n'ont jusqu'à présent répondu de façon vraiment sérieuse à aucune de nos préoccupations. Malheureusement, ce sont les contribuables et non le ministère qui vont au bout du compte défrayer les coûts des manquements éthiques dont nous avons été témoins.

Lorsque le ministre Fortier a déclaré que « « les Canadiens et Canadiennes insistent, et avec raison, pour que règne la transparence lorsque les gouvernements dépensent cet argent qu'ils ont durement gagné », nous pensons que la plupart des Canadiens doivent être d'accord avec lui. Mais il semble maintenant qu'il ne s'agissait là que de paroles vides de sens.

Je fais des affaires depuis plus de 20 ans et je travaille avec le gouvernement depuis de nombreuses années. Jusqu'à présent, j'ai toujours été traité de façon équitable par TPSGC et les autres ministères. Je n'aurais jamais imaginé avoir à recourir à des mesures aussi extrêmes que de déposer une action en justice contre le gouvernement, ce qui n'est pas, bien sûr, une mince affaire, pour simplement recevoir un traitement équitable. Mais dans ce cas les faits sont là et nous considérons qu'il n'est pas seulement de notre intérêt mais également de l'intérêt public que toute la vérité soit faite sur cet achat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

LACK OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY SURROUNDS $250 MILLION LAWSUIT

March 31st 2008

OTTAWA - TPG Technology Consulting has launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Federal government, announced company president Don Powell, at a press conference in Ottawa.

"When Senator Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada was appointed, he stated that the government would follow principles of accountability and transparency. Well, nothing could be further from the truth," stated Mr. Powell.

The government awarded an IT services contract worth $428 million for Engineering and Technical Services, to a competitor of TPG in October, 2007 despite public and media calls for an investigation into the process followed for the Request for Proposals. Since TPG raised concerns about this contract in April, 2007, PWGSC has engineered a wide-reaching and successful cover-up of information about the evaluation. Rather than being open and transparent, PWGSC erected a wall of silence and denial as TPG attempted to make use of the official government-defined mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability. All of these much-lauded mechanisms have been completely ineffective.

However, in February, 2008, TPG obtained copies of the evaluation of its proposal by happenstance, as a result of a third-party Access to Information request. These documents provide conclusive proof that certain low scores given to TPG in the "official" results were picked out of thin air, and are not based on the scores awarded by the evaluation team. The pattern of tainted scores makes it certain that these scores could not have been picked by the evaluation team.

An analysis of the legitimate scores shows that TPG should have been awarded a technical score of at least 62 out of 65, and should have won this contract by a decisive margin. Instead, TPG's "official" score was reduced to 57, ensuring that TPG would not be awarded the contract.

TPG now has no alternative but to seek redress through the courts and has filed a Breach of Contract lawsuit against PWGSC for failing to honour its Duty of Fairness to bidders in evaluating the RFP.

Equally unacceptable, PWGSC is also in Breach of Contract over the implementation of the new contract, since the department has refused to enforce many mandatory requirements defined in the RFP, putting at risk the interests of millions of Canadians.

Further, even though TPG purportedly lost this RFP on the basis of technical capabilities, PWGSC rejected most of the technical personnel proposed by the selected bidder, and has made unlawful efforts to plunder TPG resources by inducing them to assist in implementing the new contract. The end result is that taxpayers are forced to pay higher costs for exactly the same individuals that TPG would have provided.

Experience with this procurement has shown that the principles of transparency and accountability, so aptly promoted by the Conservative government following the Gomery inquiry, are not being implemented.

"The conduct of PWGSC throughout this procurement has been shocking and unacceptable. I am confident that the courts will deal with this conduct in the harshest terms. But what is not right here is that the taxpayers will ultimately pay the bill for PWGSC's mismanagement and unlawful actions," said Mr. Powell.

"The Minister talks the talk but obviously has no intention of fulfilling his promises. The critical question for every Canadian is: when can real integrity and public scrutiny be brought to federal government procurement, which awards contracts worth $13 billion a year? A moratorium on competitive procurements managed by PWGSC should be instituted until the complete truth about this contract becomes public."

For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777

Suite 100, 887 Richmond Road, Ottawa, ON - K2A 0G8
Phone: (613) 798-7647 - Fax: (613) 798-7326

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE

UN DÉFAUT D'IMPUTABILITÉ DU GOUVERNEMENT CONDUIT À UNE POURSUITE DE $250 MILLIONS

Le 31 mars 2008

OTTAWA - TPG Technology Consulting a entamé une poursuite de 250 millions de $ contre le gouvernement fédéral, annonce son président, monsieur Don Powell, à une conférence de presse tenue à Ottawa.

« Lorsque le sénateur Fortier a été nommé ministre canadien des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, il a déclaré que le gouvernement suivrait des principes d'imputabilité et de transparence. C'est loin d'être le cas. », déclare monsieur Powell.

Le gouvernement a octroyé en octobre 2007 un contrat de services de TI d'une valeur de 428 million de $ pour services de génie et services techniques à un concurrent de TPG, et ce en dépit des pressions exercées par le public et les médias pour la tenue d'une enquête sur le processus suivi au cours de la Demande de propositions. Depuis le moment où TPG a exprimé des préoccupations à l'égard de ce contrat en avril 2007, TPSGC a entrepris une vaste et efficace opération de dissimulation de l'information sur l'évaluation. Plutôt que d'agir de façon ouverte et transparente, TPSGC a dressé un mur de silence et de déni face aux tentatives de TPG de faire appel aux mécanismes officiels définis par le gouvernement lui-même pour assurer la transparence et l'imputabilité. Tous ces mécanismes tant vantés n'ont été d'aucune utilité.

En février 2008, cependant, TPG a obtenu de façon inattendue des copies de l'évaluation de sa proposition, à la suite d'une demande d'accès à l'information soumise par une tierce partie. Ces documents démontrent de façon indubitable que certaines notes faibles attribuées à TPG dans les résultats « officiels » étaient purement le fruit de l'invention et ne se fondaient pas sur les notes accordées par l'équipe d'évaluation. La répartition des résultats viciés prouve avec certitude qu'ils ne pourraient avoir été sélectionnés par l'équipe d'évaluation.

Une analyse des véritables notes indique que TPG aurait dû recevoir une note technique d'au moins 62 sur 65, remportant ainsi ce contrat haut la main. Par contre, le résultat « officiel » de TPG a été réduit à 57, garantissant que TPG ne recevrait pas le contrat.

TPG n'a donc aujourd'hui d'autre choix que de demander réparation devant les tribunaux et a donc déposé une action en justice pour rupture de contrat contre TPSGC pour n'avoir pas honoré son devoir d'agir équitablement envers les soumissionnaires dans l'évaluation de la DP.

Tout aussi inacceptable est le fait que TPSGC est également en rupture de contrat dans la mise en œuvre du nouveau contrat, étant donné que le ministère a refusé d'appliquer de nombreuses exigences obligatoires définies dans le DP, mettant ainsi en péril les intérêts de millions de Canadiens.

De plus, alors que TPG a soi-disant perdu ce DP en raison de ses capacités techniques, TPSGC a rejeté la plupart du personnel technique proposé par le soumissionnaire sélectionné et a déployé des efforts illégaux pour piller les ressources de TPG en les encourageant a assister dans la mise en œuvre du nouveau contrat. Le résultat en est que les contribuables doivent payer plus cher pour exactement les mêmes personnes que TPG aurait fournies.

L'expérience de ce processus d'approvisionnement démontre que les principes de transparence et d'imputabilité défendus de façon si opportune par le gouvernement conservateur après l'enquête Gomery ne sont pas mis en application.

« La conduite de TPSGC dans ce processus d'approvisionnement a été choquante et inacceptable. Je suis convaincu que les tribunaux traiteront cette conduite avec la plus grande sévérité. », déclare monsieur Powell.

« Le ministre dit les bonnes choses mais n'a visiblement aucune intention de tenir ses promesses. La question critique que doit se poser chaque Canadien est la suivante : quand va-t-il être possible d'appliquer des principes d'intégrité et d'examen public au processus d'approvisionnement du gouvernement fédéral, qui octroie des contrats d'une valeur de 13 milliards de $ par an? Il faudrait instituer un moratoire sur les achats en régime de concurrence gérés par TPSGC jusqu'à ce que toute la lumière soit faite sur ce contrat. »

Pour de plus amples renseignements :
Appelez-nous au 613-720-1777

Bureau 100, 887 Richmond Road, Ottawa, ON - K2A 0G8 Téléphone : (613) 798-7647 - Télécopieur : (613) 798-7326

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS CITT RULING IN $400 MILLION CONTRACT ISSUE

October 9th, 2007

OTTAWA - On September 18, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed a request for Judicial Review of a decision by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT).  This request was made by TPG Technology Consulting concerning the evaluation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) worth over $400 million.

In March, 2007, the CITT had refused to investigate issues raised by TPG concerning the fairness of the RFP evaluation.  The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned this decision, stating that the CITT was "patently unreasonable" in denying TPG's complaint.  An investigation is now expected into the irregularities in the evaluation process raised by TPG.

Furthermore, in its ruling, the Federal Court emphasized the legislative requirement from both NAFTA and the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) that the bid review process must be "open and transparent".

From the time that TPG raised concerns about this RFP, rather than being open and transparent, PWGSC has implemented a cover-up of the facts in this case by denying numerous legitimate Access to Information requests made by TPG, even though appropriate document disclosure would quickly resolve the issues in TPG's complaint.

Mr. Don Powell, President of TPG, again asked the government to apply its accountability principles and allow an investigation into this issue prior to the contract being awarded.  "We have difficulty understanding why the government talks so much about accountability while, in practical terms, they are taking every step possible to avoid scrutiny and a real investigation into the serious concerns we have raised" said Mr. Powell.

However, while TPG is pleased with the Federal Court of Appeal decision, PWGSC is now attempting to bypass the CITT process, and other accountability processes, by declaring the procurement to be "urgent" even though in court proceedings in June, 2007, PWGSC acknowledged that there would be no harm to the Crown in the delay of the contract award, so long as TPG continued to provide the required services.  The award of a $400 million contract under such conditions should be considered to be highly controversial by all Canadians and raises many questions about the reasons for this unusual step.

It seems that certain government officials are attempting to bypass the accountability measures being implemented by Prime Minister Harper.  If the government wants to inspire confidence in the public concerning the ethical standards expected of all public officials, the contract should not be awarded until it is clear that the bidding process was legitimate, fair, and open. 

For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL ISSUES ORDER ON ETS CONTRACT ISSUE

June 7th, 2007

OTTAWA - Federal Appeal Court Judge, the Honourable C.  Michael Ryer issued an order to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the Honourable Michael M.  Fortier, prohibiting PWGSC from awarding the ETS contract until a hearing into TPG's application for a judicial review is held.  This review will be done on September 5th 2007.

TPG Technology Consulting is pleased that the courts have dealt with this issue in a timely manner.  "While this is only one step, I am optimistic that it will lead to a full independent investigation into the evaluation process for the ETS RFP," stated Don Powell, President of TPG Technology Consulting.

TPG is committed to providing continued support for the critical systems covered by the ETS contract while the matter is before the courts.

For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE SHOULD HEAR THE FACTS DIRECTLY, SAYS TPG

April 30th, 2007

OTTAWA - Mr. Don Powell, president of TPG Technology Consulting Ltd.  asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations to further investigate the procurement process for the ETS contract within Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

Several statements made, on Thursday April 24th, by I. David Marshall, PWGSC Deputy Minister, to the Committee were factually wrong and some were misleading. 

Indeed, the Deputy Minister stated that the process for the awarding of the contract took a long time "because of the election." No election took place since May 31st 2006.  Furthermore, the Deputy Minister indicated that he "personally interviewed" the evaluators.  However, reports indicated that he met them as a group and did not meet with the team leader for the evaluation team.

"We're puzzled as to why the Minister and his Deputy Minister refuse to allow an independent investigation to take place," says Mr. Powell.

What do we know?
1. Proposals were evaluated by early November 2006

2. At that time, rumours were heard stating that TPG won the bid - this information came from several sources with PWGSC

3. Mr. Jim Bezanson, at that time evaluation team leader, stated on March 11th that the technical evaluation results were very close (understood to mean 1 to 2 points apart) - this is confirmed in an affidavit made by the person who talked with Mr. Bezanson

4. On November 22nd, Mr. Maurice Chénier, Director General of Service Management and Delivery indicated to Mr. Powell that the results of the technical evaluation were to be "re-confirmed" - confirmed in an affidavit signed by Mr. Powell

5. The financial evaluation showed that TPG had won that part of the evaluation by tens of millions of dollars - as per a document in TPG's possession

6. Mr. Bezanson's replacement at PWGSC confirmed the "close evaluation" in a conversation with another individual

7. If the technical evaluations were close and the financial evaluation were as known, TPG should have been awarded the contract

8. A document in TPG's possession indicates that the results of the technical evaluation were not as previously stated: now between 5 and 6 points apart.  This differs from the information obtained from the technical evaluation team leader and his replacement at PWGSC raising questions and concerns

What happened? It is clear that something happened to change the technical evaluation scores. 

The Committee on Government Operations and Estimates should ask Mr. Jim Bezanson and senior managers within ITSB to appear as witnesses in front of the Committee to confirm their statements and then investigate the process, starting by asking Mr. Maurice Chénier to appear in front of the Committee.

TPG is concerned that the statement by Minister Fortier on his unwillingness to see that issue raised in front of the Public Sector Integrity Office taints the process and is an assault on the independence of that office, which has been established to investigate wrongdoing within the public service. 

For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

TPG Concerned that Minister Fortier Doesn't Support an Investigation into Suspicious Contract

April 25th, 2007

OTTAWA - TPG Technology Consulting Ltd.'s president, Mr. Don Powell, is concerned that a number of recent statements made by Mr. Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), suggest the Minister is turning a blind eye to the circumstances surrounding the pending award of a $400 million contract for technical services.  Otherwise, his department would be more willing to investigate the potential conflicts of interests and possible breaches of protocol surrounding this process.

"The Minister keeps stating that nothing went wrong and that he doesn't want an inquiry into the process, but an inquiry would give other individuals the opportunity to come forward and state once and for all what happened," said Mr. Powell. 

"We thought this new government would welcome whistle-blowers and be ready to investigate their claims to ensure the fairness and transparency of the process, but the opposite seems to be happening!" Mr. Powell said. 

"How can they say there's nothing wrong without even looking at what we have? We thought the 'shoot, shovel and shut up policy' wouldn't be part of the Conservatives' agenda."

Mr. Powell said PWGSC has not seen the evidence obtained by TPG, but has worked hard to discredit TPG's concerns. 

Here are the facts:

•  The Government has tried to discredit TPG's concerns by accusing TPG of "sour grapes".  However, TPG began expressing concerns to officials over the RFP process as far back as May 2006 when the contract was first tendered for proposals - long before the results were known.

•  The Minister has stated that he doesn't want the Public Sector Integrity Office (PSIO) to investigate this issue.  Not only is his statement a clear indication that this government doesn't want the truth to come out through an independent investigation; it is also disconcerting that a Minister would explicitly state that he doesn't want an agent of Parliament to investigate.

•  Both the Department and the Government have not requested nor seen the evidence that TPG possesses concerning potential conflicts of interest and interference in this contract process, nor have they offered to protect people who might come forward with evidence.  Furthermore, by stating that he doesn't want the PSIO to be involved, Minister Fortier is attempting to close the door on any protection that civil servants or contractors would have.

Where is the accountability?

Mr. Powell states that he is ready to divulge information to an independent body that will offer protection to involved individuals so that they can feel safe in coming forward to share their concerns about this process.

An independent inquiry is the only way to determine whether this contract process was conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner. 

For further information:
Call Chris Frantz: 613-720-1777

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

TPG Technology calls on CGI to join it in its request for an investigation

April 18th, 2007

OTTAWA - TPG Technology Consulting Ltd.'s president, Mr. Don Powell, confirmed today that his concerns are not related to any of the CGI Group's activities.

"We compete on a regular basis against the CGI Group, sometimes we win and sometimes we lose: that is a normal process," said Mr. Powell.  The concerns expressed by TPG in the last few days are related to conflicts of interest and a process that was not followed - not CGI's actions.

Mr. Powell agrees with CGI's recently published press release regarding them having followed the clear and strict procurement rules: "We, the bidders, followed the rules, and this is why I am so concerned about what has happened in this issue."

TPG Technology invites the CGI Group to join them in a call for an investigation in the process and conflicts of interest in this case.

Opening the process, getting to the truth, finding out what happened: all this benefits the Canadian taxpayers, the business sector and the Canadian government.

For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PRESS RELEASE

INQUIRY REQUEST INTO AWARDING OF $400M CONTRACT

April 16th, 2007

OTTAWA - Don Powell, President of TPG Technology Consulting Ltd., has officially requested that the newly-created Public Sector Integrity Office hold an inquiry into possible wrongdoing and conflicts of interest within Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

"A letter has been sent to the Public Sector Integrity Office," said Mr. Powell. "We hope that they will investigate this complaint quickly." At stake is a contract, worth more than $400 million and spanning seven years, that will be allocated by PWGSC to provide IT services to the government of Canada.

In addition, letters have been sent to the various Ministers sitting on the Treasury Board Committee, requesting them not to approve this contract until an inquiry has been held.

The Honourable Senator Michael Fortier, PC, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, has stated in the House of Commons and in Committees that he put in place a more open, transparent and fair procurement process.

However, in this case, TPG Technology Consulting, which has provided the service for more than seven years, was first not allowed to compete. Furthermore, efforts were made to "disqualify" the company from the Request for Proposals (RFP); the pre-established process for the RFP was not followed (which contravenes internationally recognized rules); and it appears that final evaluation scores were changed to favour one specific company.

Minister Fortier, in his proposed Code of Conduct for Procurement, states that public servants "Must avoid or withdraw from activities or situations, including procurement actions that would place the public servant in real, potential or apparent conflict of interest with his or her official duties due to ownership of assets, liabilities, family relationships or other such circumstance."

One of TPG's competitors stands to lose about 70 per cent of its revenues if TPG wins the contract in question. A senior bureaucrat with influence over the RFP process holds 30 per cent of the shares in that competing company, and his family owns another 10 per cent.

"We ask that the government do more than merely talk about accountability - we expect it to implement its own rules," stated Mr. Powell. By going public, Mr. Powell hopes to encourage civil servants who have information on this issue to come forward. Those who are worried about possible reprisals may place themselves under the protection of the Public Sector Integrity Office and provide the information that they have.


For further information:
Call: 613-720-1777