The statement of reasons will be issued at a later date.
. R.S.C., 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.) [CITT Act].
. S.O.R./93-602 [Regulations].
. Amendment No. 002 of the RFP extended the solicitation closing date from October 26 to October 28, 2015.
. R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1 [AIA].
. The amount is greater than the amount indicated by PWGSC in its December 2, 2015, e-mail to J.K. Engineering. PWGSC subsequently described the latter as being “for the firm quantity only”.
. On December 8, 2015, J.K. Engineering was unable to complete the e-filing of its complaint due to a known technical issue with the Tribunal’s server. As a result, J.K. Engineering had to re-submit its complaint on December 10, 2015. The Tribunal acknowledged the complaint as if it had been filed on December 8, 2015.
. Subsection 6(1) of the Regulations.
. Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Regulations.
. Paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulations.
. Paragraph 7(1)(c) of the Regulations.
. Sani Sport (10 March 2015), PR-014-064 (CITT) at para. 29 [Sani Sport]; Teledyne Webb Research, a business unit of Teledyne Benthos, Inc. (20 October 2011), PR-2011-038 (CITT) at para. 17; The Corporate Research Group Ltd., operating as CRG Consulting (26 January 2010), PR-2009-075 (CITT) at para. 24; IBM Canada Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard (Canada) Ltd., 2002 FCA 284 (CanLII).
. The rejection notice from PWGSC dated December 2, 2015, stated that J.K. Engineering’s bid was found non‑responsive to the mandatory requirements of the solicitation, without listing them specifically. J.K. Engineering inferred the requirement that its bid had failed to meet on the basis of PWGSC’s earlier e-mail of November 18, 2015. However, the Tribunal is of the view that it would have been preferable, and more transparent, if PWGSC’s rejection letter had specifically identified the mandatory requirements that were not met by J.K. Engineering’s bid.
. In fact, as noted above, the evidence attached with the complaint shows that J.K. Engineering sent an e-mail to PWGSC on December 3, 2015. If this was the date on which an e-mail was first sent, then it would not have fallen with the 10-working-day time limit for making an objection.
. Sani Sport at para. 26; CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc. v. Canada Post Corporation and Innovapost Inc. (14 October 2014), PR-2014-016 and PR-2014-021 (CITT) at para. 63.
. Furthermore, the request for access to information cannot somehow serve to keep J.K. Engineering’s complaint alive; it is an independent process with no bearing on the time limits for making an objection to PWGSC or filing a complaint with the Tribunal.
. Revised Agreement on Government Procurement, online: World Trade Organization <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/rev-gpr-94_01_e.htm> (entered into force 6 April 2014).
. Unisource Technology Inc. (13 December 2013), PR-2013-027 (CITT) at para. 16; Thomson-CSF Systems Canada Inc. (12 October 2000), PR-2000-010 (CITT); Canadian Helicopters Limited (19 February 2001), PR‑2000-040 (CITT); WorkLogic Corporation (12 June 2003), PR-2002-057 (CITT).
. Siemens Westinghouse Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), 2000 CanLII 15611 (FCA).
. Excel Human Resources Inc. (operating as excelITR) v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (25 August 2006), PR-2005-058 (CITT) at para. 30; Northern Lights Aerobatic Team, Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (7 September 2005), PR-2005-004 (CITT) at para. 51; Marcomm Inc. (11 February 2004), PR-2003-051 (CITT) at para. 10.
. RFP, Section III, Articles 126.96.36.199 and 4.2; RFP, Annex “C”, Articles 1.3 and 2.
. RFP, Section III, Article 4.2.
. RFP, Section III, Article 188.8.131.52. In addition, the Standard Instructions incorporated by reference into the RFP specified that Canada would only evaluate the documentation provided with a bidder’s bid. See 2003 (2015‑07‑03) Standard Instructions – Goods or Services – Competitive Requirements, subsection 5(7).
. Complaint, section 5.A.
. Excel Human Resources Inc. v. Department of the Environment (2 March 2012), PR-2011-043 (CITT) at para. 34; Integrated Procurement Technologies, Inc. (14 April 2008), PR-2008-007 (CITT) at para. 13.
. Agri-SX Inc. (27 March 2013), PR-2012-051 (CITT) at paras. 26-29; 723186 Alberta Ltd. (12 September 2011), PR-2011-028 (CITT) at paras. 19-21.
. Complaint, section 5.F.