1) the solicitation has not been conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner, as recommended by the Tribunal;
2) the RFSO’s technical specifications still favour a particular supplier;
3) PWGSC has violated various provisions of its Supply Manual, its Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions (SACC) Manual and its Code of Conduct for Procurement by, inter alia, incorporating requirements into the RFSO that are not essential; and
4) the RCMP and PWGSC improperly invoked the National Security Exception (NSE) with regard to the RFSO.
. R.S.C., 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.) [CITT Act].
. S.O.R./93-602 [Regulations].
. Pursuant to subsection 30.12(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal deemed the complaint to be incomplete pending the filing of the RFSO at issue. The Tribunal accepted the complaint as complete and filed as of the date of filing of the RFSO on April 13, 2017. For the purposes of its timeliness analysis under subsection 6(1) of the Regulations, the Tribunal treats the complaint as filed on April 10, 2017, even though it was not accepted as complete until the submission of the RFSO.
. M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (10 August 2016), PR‑2015‑070 (CITT) [M.D. Charlton] at para. 67.
. Complaint, Annex G at 1.
. Complaint, Annex H at 1.
. Complaint, Annex E.
. Complaint, Annex E2.
. Complaint, Annex H at 5. Questions 34-35, 42 and 44 essentially re-phrase the questions in Q9 and Q10. Regardless, even if considered to be new, the vagueness of the questions (“explain how the manufacturers were picked” (Q34), “explain how this solicitation better expresses Canada’s operational requirements with respect to the last solicitation” (Q35), “[w]here is this new requirement coming from” (Q42), and “[w]ould the crown consider removing the mandatory of white phosphor” (Q44)) and the manner in which they fail to present any evidence of how a specific requirement is biased and simply refer back to the prior solicitation render them improper grounds of complaint.
. The seven other questions do not raise potentially valid grounds of complaint. Questions 36-37 involve the NSE, which is not a valid ground of complaint as discussed below. Questions 38-39 involve procedural questions about the debriefing and recourse process. Question 40 inquires about why the RCMP did not issue a Request for Information or Pricing before issuing the RFSO. Question 41 asks why the RFSO prohibits faxing of bids. Question 45 is a request that the mandatory requirements be minimized, consistent with section 4.35.1 of the SACC Manual (which is not a valid ground of complaint as discussed below), without any evidence or allegation as to why a specific requirement is biased.
. Complaint, Annex H at 5.
. Complaint, Annex H at 6.
. Complaint, Annex H at 9.
. Shaw Industries Inc. (11 August 2014), PR-2014-022 at para. 32; Genesis Security Inc. (2 February 2016), PR‑2015-055 (CITT) at para. 13; Toromont Cat (22 January 2016), PR-2015-054 (CITT) at para. 15; 2040077 Ontario Inc. o/a FDF Group (27 August 2014), PR-2014-024 (CITT) at para. 14; APM Diesel 1992 Inc. (15 February 2012), PR-2011-052 (CITT) at para. 15; IBM Canada Ltd. v. Hewlett Packard (Canada) Ltd., 2002 FCA 284 (CanLII).
. Siemens Westinghouse Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), 2001 FCA 241 (CanLII) at paras. 37-38.
. Canada (Attorney General) v. Northrop Grumman Overseas Services Corporation, 2007 FCA 336 (CanLII) at paras. 18-21.
. M.D. Charlton at para. 67.
. Adirondack Information Management Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (24 July 2015), PR-2015-019 (CITT) at para. 5.
. Springcrest Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (21 November 2016), PR-2016-021 (CITT) [Springcrest] at para. 53; 723186 Alberta Ltd. (12 September 2011), PR-2011-028 (CITT) [Alberta Ltd.] at para. 19; Diagen Communications (23 August 2011), PR-2011-021 (CITT) [Diagen] at para. 15.
. Alberta Ltd. at 20; Diagen at para. 16.
. Alberta Ltd. at 21; Diagen at para. 17.
. CAE Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (7 September 2004), PR-2004-008 (CITT) at para. 43.
. Array Systems Computing Inc. (25 March 1996), PR-95-024 (CITT).
. Corel Corporation v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (26 October 1998), PR-98-012 and PR-98-014 (CITT).
. Springcrest at para. 53; R.P.M. Tech Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (25 March 2015), PR-2014-040 (CITT) at para. 30.
. Specifically, Supply Manual: 1.10.5 (Guiding Principles), 1.30.5 (Treasury Board Contracting Policy), 2.1 (Requirements Definition), 4.25 (The Requirement), 4.35.1 (Mandatory Criteria); SACC Manual: A0012T Contact During Bid Period; and the Code of Conduct for Procurement.