Canadian International Trade Tribunal
www.citt-tcce.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Procurement
Determinations
P&L COMMUNICATIONS INC.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
File No. PR-2005-026
Determination and reasons issued
Thursday, December 22, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (181K) through FTP
Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (240K) through FTP
Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (181K) through HTTP
Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (240K) through HTTP
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed by P&L Communications Inc. under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47;
AND FURTHER TO a decision to conduct an inquiry into the complaint under subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
|
BETWEEN |
|
|
P&L COMMUNICATIONS INC. |
Complainant |
|
AND |
|
|
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES |
Government Institution |
DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines that the complaint is valid in part.
Pursuant to subsections 30.15(2) and (3) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommends, as a remedy, that the Department of Public Works and Government Services terminate the existing tendering process and initiate a new solicitation. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal further recommends that a restructured weighting scheme be applied to the point-rated section of the new Request for Proposal to ensure that the points are awarded in a manner that does not unjustifiably discriminate against bidders that meet the mandatory requirements but have less experience than other bidders.
Pursuant to section 30.16 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal awards P&L Communications Inc. its reasonable costs incurred in preparing and proceeding with the complaint, which costs are to be paid by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal's preliminary indication of the level of complexity for this complaint case is Level 1, and its preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award is $1,000. If any party disagrees with the preliminary indication of the level of complexity or the preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award, it may make submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, as contemplated by the Guideline for Fixing Costs in Procurement Complaint Proceedings. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to establish the final amount of the award.
Meriel V. M. Bradford
Meriel V. M. Bradford
Presiding Member
Hélène Nadeau
Hélène Nadeau
Secretary
|
Tribunal Member: |
Meriel V. M. Bradford, Presiding Member |
|
Research Director: |
Marie-France Dagenais |
|
Investigation Manager: |
Michael W. Morden |
|
Counsel for the Tribunal: |
Philippe Cellard |
|
Complainant: |
P&L Communications Inc. |
|
Government Institution: |
Department of Public Works and Government Services |
|
Counsel for the Government Institution: |
Susan D. Clarke |
|
Christianne M. Laizner |
|
|
Ian McLeod |
Please address all communications to:
The Secretary
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
15th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G7
Telephone: (613) 993-3595
Fax: (613) 990-2439
E-mail: secretary@citt-tcce.gc.ca
STATEMENT OF REASONS
COMPLAINT
1. On September 30, 2005, P&L Communications Inc. (P&L) filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. 1 The complaint concerned the procurement (Solicitation No. U6523-059284/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of news monitoring and aggregating software and services for the Department of Industry (Industry Canada).
2. P&L alleged that PWGSC discriminated against all bidders except the "market leader" because both the mandatory and rated requirements unjustifiably limited competition. More specifically, it alleged that the mandatory requirement to have five existing clients is too high, given that the government typically only purchases one or two such systems a year. It submitted that a requirement for three previous clients is more than sufficient to demonstrate the bidder's capacity to meet the technical requirements and that, when further proof of a bidder's qualifications is required, the norm is to request two or three letters of reference from such clients.
3. P&L alleged that the situation created by the mandatory requirements is compounded by a point-rated scoring system that requires that all bidders have at least five years' experience in the market and have at least five clients and that project managers have at least six years' experience, if they wish to score any points in the portion of the Request for Proposal (RFP) which is evaluated on a points-rated basis. It also argued that the point allocation schemes discriminate against firms that are not market leaders in that the number of awarded points is geometrically proportional to the level of experience. Finally, it noted that there are no points allocated for bid compliance with the specified technical requirements and that not a single point is allocated for any qualification other than market presence.
4. P&L requested that the Tribunal recommend as a remedy that PWGSC rewrite the RFP and include a new point-rated scoring system based primarily on the bid's technical merits, that the mandatory and rated requirements not exceed three clients and three years in the market, that the points be allocated in a linear manner and that the maximum number of points awarded for experience not exceed 15 percent of the total of all points awarded. It requested that the authors of the current RFP be excluded from further involvement in the solicitation. It also requested that it be awarded its costs and that the Tribunal issue a postponement of award order.
5. On October 6, 2005, the Tribunal informed the parties that, pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the CITT Act and subsection 7(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, 2 the Tribunal had decided to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.
6. On the same date, pursuant to subsection 30.13(3) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal issued a postponement of award order.
7. On October 31, 2005, PWGSC submitted the Government Institution Report (GIR). On November 14, 2005, P&L submitted its comments on the GIR.
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
8. On August 15, 2005, PWGSC issued the RFP, with the requirement being described as follows:
. . . a complete, stand-alone, market-proven, state-of-the-art news monitoring software solution that provides a wide range of client-centered features. Both provision and external hosting of a news monitoring software system is required, and the system must be capable of integrating news feeds from a variety of sources and delivering the final product to the electronic desktops of approximately 6000 employees.
. . .
9. The original due date for the receipt of bids was September 26, 2005. This date was amended twice, first to October 3 and then to October 17, 2005, when, according to PWGSC, one proposal was received.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
PWGSC's Position
10. In the GIR, PWGSC denied the allegation that the requirement for potential suppliers to demonstrate that they had five years' experience in the subject field and that they had implemented five Web-based products discriminated against every bidder except the market leader. It submitted that Industry Canada was searching for a robust, well-tested and market-proven service and that these experience requirements were Industry Canada's reasonable and legitimate operational requirements.
11. PWGSC submitted that, given Industry Canada's experience with its current news monitoring and dissemination service, Industry Canada determined that it needed to acquire a mature service model with at least five years of market presence to ensure that the model had the capacity to deliver a reliable and stable service. It submitted that the requirement for five previous projects was not unreasonable and that a client base of five to eight is not unusually large and more of an indicator of acceptance in the marketplace. It noted that P&L appeared to have interpreted this requirement as being limited to government projects, whereas the text of the RFP, specifically section C.2.1.1.2-which relates to previous experience in the development of Web-based applications-envisioned both public and private sector projects. Given this broader scope, it submitted that the requirement to have experience with respect to a minimum of five previous projects is neither unreasonable nor excessive.
12. PWGSC also noted that Industry Canada had conducted market research and had a reasonable expectation that a number of suppliers, including P&L, would be capable of meeting the mandatory requirements of five years' experience and five previous projects. It submitted that P&L's corporate Web page listed 14 entities, both governmental and non-governmental, as "clients". 3 PWGSC also noted that, while Industry Canada was conducting the market research, it met with P&L on its premises and that P&L provided Industry Canada officials with a copy of a seven-year-old article 4 that indicated that P&L had been active in the field since 1996.
13. Regarding the allegation that the number of awarded points is geometrically proportional to the level of experience, thereby discriminating in favour of the "market leader", PWGSC submitted that the allegation was baseless and without merit. It submitted that the allocation of points in the rated scheme is linear and proportional for any bidder that meets the minimum mandatory experience requirements set out in the RFP. Citing the example in subsection C.2.1.2.1 b)-"Corporate Point Related Criteria"-regarding "[e]xperience developing and implementing web-based applications for aggregating, searching, disseminating, and retrieving news articles from a range of news feed sources", PWGSC argued that a bidder would receive no points for merely meeting the minimum of five projects, but would receive four points for each project submitted over the mandatory minimum. This, it claimed, is a linear, not geometric, scale.
14. PWGSC submitted that the complaint is without merit and ought to be dismissed and that it should be awarded its costs in accordance with the Tribunal's Guideline for Fixing Costs in Procurement Complaint Proceedings (the Guideline).
P&L's Position
15. In its comments on the GIR, P&L argued that the bid evaluation system in the RFP was based entirely on market presence, that the point-rated scoring system was heavily tilted towards suppliers with the highest market share and that this scoring system clearly and incontrovertibly limited competition. P&L submitted that it was not surprised that, given these market share criteria, PWGSC received only one proposal in response to this solicitation.
16. Regarding PWGSC's suggestion that bidders could also draw upon private sector experience, P&L submitted that the suggestion is without merit, as the government requirement is a unique, highly specialized niche market and that there is no private sector market in the Ottawa, Ontario, vicinity for vendors of these systems. It submitted that there are only a handful of commercial organizations, if any, with a user base of several hundreds or thousands similar to that contemplated in this or other solicitations from federal departments for electronic media monitoring systems. P&L noted that PWGSC did not provide the names of any such organizations and that it did not appear that Industry Canada had consulted such organizations during its product research phase.
17. Regarding PWGSC's interpretation of P&L's Web site information, P&L submitted that the listing is mostly of clients of its news summary service, not its news monitoring delivery services, which are the focus of the RFP in question. P&L submitted that Industry Canada should have been aware that P&L was providing Industry Canada with the news summary service and, as Industry Canada was listed as one of these clients on the Web site, that it was not reasonable for Industry Canada to assume that any or all of the other clients listed on the Web page were for the news monitoring delivery services. It also submitted that it never represented to Industry Canada that it had sold any delivery system before 1999, a time frame which, it noted, barely met the minimum requirements and was worthy of almost no points in the rated requirements.
18. Regarding the geometric or linear point rating scheme, P&L submitted that the scheme is definitely geometric and provided tables 5 that demonstrate that the points-per-year and points-per-project allocations were not linear.
TRIBUNAL'S ANALYSIS
19. Subsection 30.14(1) of the CITT Act requires that, in conducting an inquiry, the Tribunal limit its considerations to the subject matter of the complaint. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Tribunal must determine whether the complaint is valid on the basis of whether the procedures and other requirements prescribed in respect of the designated contract have been observed. Section 11 of the Regulations further provides that the Tribunal is required to determine whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements, which, in this case, are the Agreement on Internal Trade 6 and the North American Free Trade Agreement. 7
20. Article 504 of the AIT reads as follows:
. . .
2. With respect to the Federal Government, . . . it shall not discriminate:
(a) between the goods or services of a particular Province or region, including those goods and services included in construction contracts, and those of any other Province or region; or
(b) between the suppliers of such goods or services of a particular Province or region and those of any other Province or region.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, measures that are inconsistent with paragraphs 1 and 2 include, but are not limited to, the following:
. . .
(g) the unjustifiable exclusion of a supplier from tendering.
21. Article 506(6) of the AIT provides the following:
In evaluating tenders, a Party may take into account not only the submitted price but also quality, quantity, delivery, servicing, the capacity of the supplier to meet the requirements of the procurement and any other criteria directly related to the procurement that are consistent with Article 504. The tender documents shall clearly identify the requirements of the procurement, the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of bids and the methods of weighting and evaluating the criteria.
22. Article 1008 of NAFTA reads as follows:
1. Each Party shall ensure that the tendering procedures of its entities are:
(a) applied in a non-discriminatory manner . . . .
23. Article 1009(2)(b) NAFTA provides as follows:
2. The qualification procedures followed by an entity shall be consistent with the following:
. . .
(b) conditions for participation by suppliers in tendering procedures . . . shall be limited to those that are essential to ensure the fulfillment of the contract in question.
24. P&L's first ground of complaint concerned the mandatory requirements that bidders have a minimum of five years' experience in the development of Web-based news aggregating and disseminating systems and that bidders have performed a minimum of five projects. Article 506(6) of the AIT provides that a government institution may take into account the supplier's capacity to meet the requirements of the procurement. For its part, Article 1009(2)(b) of NAFTA provides, in part, that conditions for participation by suppliers in tendering procedures shall be limited to those that are essential to ensure the fulfilment of the contract in question. To require a minimum level of experience from the bidders is one way to take into account the suppliers' capacity to meet the requirements of the procurement and that method was not contested by P&L. However, P&L argued that the mandatory requirements relating to experience are unnecessarily exacting.
25. To justify those requirements, PWGSC referred, notably, to a statement provided by Industry Canada on this matter, 8 which reads as follows:
Industry Canada requires 5 years experience in the development of news aggregating and disseminating systems as part of its mandatory requirements because the Department wishes to engage an organization with substantive experience in this particular area, with a proven track record of delivering a mature product that . . . has proceeded through its life cycle of version upgrades, bug fixes, and development, and with demonstrated commitment to this aspect of software development. The demand for increased experience renders it more likely that organizations have successfully accommodated varying demands from multiple stakeholders, successfully negotiated ever-increasing advances in the product and IT security, and handled changes in feed source and type over time. Further, this time frame suggests experience with an evolutionary system that has, by necessity of competing development, changed and grown in terms of features. A shorter period of experience could possibly represent the development of a static system that was sufficient when presented but that has not been developed to match the general level of competing development in the industry.
26. PWGSC also submitted that a base of five to eight clients is usually an indicator of acceptance in the marketplace and likely ensures ongoing development of the service, as well as the capacity and flexibility to accommodate unique client needs and demands.
27. In the Tribunal's view, it was legitimate for PWGSC to want to ensure that the chosen bidder had a track record that demonstrated stability and experience and, to that effect, to require from bidders five years' experience in the field and five previous projects. The Tribunal notes that P&L's comment that "[f]ive plus years is an eternity in the computer business", 9 far from denying the legitimacy of the requirements established by PWGSC, instead supports it, in that the industry appears to be quite volatile and Industry Canada was seeking a dependable supplier that would be able to serve its needs over a number of years.
28. PWGSC submitted that it was reasonable for Industry Canada to believe, on the basis of the research that it had carried out, that a number of potential suppliers, including P&L, would be capable of meeting the mandatory requirements of five years' experience and five previous projects. P&L acknowledged 10 that, on the basis of the research conducted before issuing the RFP, PWGSC had apparently issued the RFP believing that P&L had a good chance of scoring well. However, P&L argued that it raised objections prior to the bid closing date and indicated that it was a supplier with several years' experience and that, even so, it would have trouble meeting the mandatory experience requirements, let alone scoring enough points to stand any chance of winning.
29. The Tribunal notes that, in its written objection to PWGSC, 11 P&L stated the following: "For some five years our firm has provided news monitoring systems to several federal departments and organizations including Human Resources Development Canada, perhaps the largest department in the federal government with 22,000 employees at its peak. It is absurd to assume a priori that we are less capable or that our system is less reliable than any others. Yet the way the point system is structured we would receive almost no points because we have had 5 clients for fewer than 6 years." The latter part of this statement seems to imply that P&L was in a position to meet the mandatory requirements, but was complaining about the weighting of the points for the rated requirements. Under these circumstances, PWGSC could legitimately believe that P&L would be able to meet the mandatory requirements. The Tribunal will address the issue of the weighting of the point-rated requirements below.
30. In light of the evidence on the record, the Tribunal finds that it was reasonable for PWGSC to require that bidders have a minimum of five years' experience in the development of Web-based news aggregating and disseminating systems and a minimum of five previous projects. Therefore, in establishing these mandatory requirements, PWGSC did not breach Article 504(2), 504(3) or 506(6) of the AIT, nor Article 1008 or 1009(2)(b) of NAFTA.
31. P&L's second ground of complaint concerned the weighting of the point-rated requirements. As indicated above, Article 506(6) of the AIT provides that a government institution may take into account the supplier's capacity to meet the requirements of the procurement. Longer or greater experience may indicate that a supplier has a better capacity to meet the requirements of a given procurement than another competing supplier. Indeed, P&L does not contest PWGSC's right to allocate more points to more experienced suppliers. It challenged the actual weighting of the points for these criteria in the RFP.
32. In the Tribunal's view, the current RFP unduly and inappropriately allocates points to bidders with more experience. Section C.2.1.2 of the RFP provides as follows:
|
Criteria |
Rating Scales |
Max. Points |
|
|
C.2.1.2.1 Corporate Point Rated Criteria |
|||
|
a) Experience in the development of web based news aggregating and disseminating systems. |
5+ to 6 years = 7 points |
28 |
|
|
b) Experience developing and implementing web-based applications for aggregating, searching disseminating, and retrieving news articles from a range of news feed sources. For each project, the following information should be included: · Start and end dates (end date if applicable) {dd/mm/yy to dd/mm/yy}; · Name and description of client organization; · Name and phone number of client reference; · Project description; · Scope, size in number of individual news feeds and number of individual client profiles; 33. Note: Client references may be contacted to substantiate project experience |
6 projects = 4 points Highest Project Value $25K-$50K = 1 point |
16 |
|
|
c). Experience in the development of web based applications that meet the Government of Canada's Common Look and Feel guidelines. http:/www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf-nsi/index_e.asp |
1+ to 2 years = 3 points |
9 |
|
|
d) Experience providing training for web based applications. |
3+ to 4 years = 1 points |
3 |
|
|
C.2.1.2.2 Point Rated Criteria - Project Manager |
|||
|
A). Experience in the development of web based news aggregating and disseminating applications. |
6+ to 7 years = 3 points |
9 |
|
|
B) Experience as a Project Manager. Project Management experience includes: · Acting as primary point of contact with the client; · Maintaining the project plans at the project level; · Organizing the project team's time; · Managing priorities of the team; and · Consolidating status reports. |
5+ to 6 years = 1 points |
3 |
|
34. The Tribunal notes P&L's submission that, for five of the six rated categories in sections C.2.1.2.1 and C.2.1.2.2, the points per year allocated at C.2.1.2.1 a), C.2.1.2.1 d), C.2.1.2.2 A) and C.2.1.2.1 B) and the points per project allocated at C.2.1.2.1 b) were more than, or almost double, for bidders that scored in the highest-rated level, compared to those that just met the threshold or that scored in the lowest-rated level. The Tribunal notes that, from a gross score perspective, this translates into at least triple the number of points for bidders that achieved the highest-level score in the various criteria compared to the number for bidders that just met the threshold or had the lowest-level score for those same criteria.
35. The Tribunal is of the view that PWGSC has properly demonstrated the importance of establishing minimum levels of experience to ensure that the chosen supplier has a satisfactory level of stability and experience. However, it is of the view that PWGSC has failed to explain how an additional year or an additional project or two could warrant the award of the number of points contemplated in the RFP. As an example, the table shown below aptly illustrates the unreasonable results that would flow from the application of the current point-allocation scheme in a case where Bidder A has 2 more years of experience, has developed 2 more projects and has a project manager with 2 more years of experience than Bidder B.
|
Rated |
Bidder A |
Bidder A |
Bidder B |
Bidder B |
|
C2.1.2.1(a) |
7 years |
21 |
5 years |
7 |
|
C2.1.2.1(b) |
7 projects |
8 |
5 projects |
0 |
|
C2.1.2.1(c) |
3 years |
9 |
3 years |
9 |
|
C2.1.2.1(d) |
5 years |
3 |
5 years |
3 |
|
C2.1.2.2(A) |
7 years |
6 |
5 years |
0 |
|
C2.1.2.2(B) |
7 years |
3 |
5 years |
1 |
|
Total |
50 |
20 |
36. Section C.1 of the RFP provides that the proposal to be selected is the one offering the "lowest cost-per-point". To obtain the cost per point, PWGSC divides the total estimated cost by the total points achieved. Under this formula and given that section C.2.1.2 is the only one pursuant to which points are awarded, Bidder A from the above example could present a bid price that is more than twice the bid price of Bidder B and still win the contract. The Tribunal notes that such an unreasonable result would be contrary to Industry Canada's stated objective to obtain a system at a low cost. 12 In the Tribunal's view, the weighting of the point-rated requirements in section C.2.1.2 is unreasonable and amounts to a breach of Article 504(3) of the AIT, in that it unjustifiably discriminates against bidders that, although having met the mandatory requirements of the RFP relating to experience, have less experience than other bidders. To permit a procurement to take place under such conditions would also run contrary to the purpose of Chapter Five of the AIT, which is "to establish a framework that will ensure access to procurement for all Canadian suppliers in order to contribute to a reduction in purchasing costs . . .". 13
37. For the above reasons, the Tribunal determines that the complaint is valid in part.
38. As a result, pursuant to subsections 30.15(2) and (3) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal recommends that PWGSC cancel Solicitation No. U6523-059284/A and initiate a new solicitation and that a restructured weighting scheme be applied to the point-rated section of the new RFP to ensure that the points are awarded in a manner that does not unjustifiably discriminate against bidders that meet the mandatory requirements but have less experience than other bidders.
39. The Tribunal notes that P&L requested that PWGSC exclude the current authors of the RFP from the new solicitation, rewrite the evaluation criteria such that the market presence elements are limited to 15 percent of the total value of the rated criteria and move the technical requirements from the mandatory to the rated section. As the Tribunal does not find, on the basis of evidence on the record, that the government officials involved in the procurement acted in bad faith, it does not believe that the circumstances of this case warrant the exclusion of the authors of the RFP from the process of re-issuing the RFP. With respect to technical requirements, while it is often useful to rate them, there are no obligations under the AIT or NAFTA to do so. However, when the only rated requirements are those relating to experience, the government institution must ensure that greater experience does not unjustifiably favour the bidders that have it.
40. The Tribunal awards P&L its reasonable costs incurred in preparing and proceeding with the complaint. It has considered the Guideline and is of the view that this complaint case has a complexity level corresponding to the lowest level of complexity referred to in Appendix A of the Guideline (Level 1).
41. The Guideline contemplates classification of the level of complexity of complaint cases based on three criteria: the complexity of the procurement; the complexity of the complaint; and the complexity of the complaint proceedings. The complexity of the procurement was low, in that it involved defined, routine services. The complexity of the complaint was medium, in that it involved overly restrictive specifications, as well as mandatory and rated requirements. Finally, the complexity of the complaint proceedings was low, as there were no interveners, a public hearing was not held, and the 90-day time frame was respected. Accordingly, as contemplated by the Guideline, the Tribunal's preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award is $1,000. The Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to establish the final amount of the award.
DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL
42. Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal determines that the complaint is valid in part.
43. Pursuant to subsections 30.15(2) and (3) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal recommends, as a remedy, that PWGSC terminate the existing tendering process and initiate a new solicitation. The Tribunal further recommends that a restructured weighting scheme be applied to the point-rated section of the new RFP to ensure that the points are awarded in a manner that does not unjustifiably discriminate against bidders that meet the mandatory requirements but have less experience than other bidders.
44. Pursuant to section 30.16 of the CITT Act, the Tribunal awards P&L its reasonable costs incurred in preparing and proceeding with the complaint, which costs are to be paid by PWGSC. The Tribunal's preliminary indication of the level of complexity for this complaint case is Level 1, and its preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award is $1,000. If any party disagrees with the preliminary indication of the level of complexity or the preliminary indication of the amount of the cost award, it may make submissions to the Tribunal, as contemplated by the Guideline. The Tribunal reserves jurisdiction to establish the final amount of the award.
1 . R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47 [CITT Act].
2 . S.O.R./93-602 [Regulations].
3 . GIR, exhibit 13.
4 . GIR, exhibit 14.
5 . Comments on the GIR, annexes 5 and 6.
6 . 18 July 1994, C. Gaz. 1995.I.1323, online: Internal Trade Secretariat <http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/index_en/ait.htm> [AIT].
7 . North American Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America, 17 December 1992, 1994 Can. T.S. No. 2 (entered into force 1 January 1994) [NAFTA].
8 . GIR, exhibit 12.
9 . Section 5.A.2 of the Tribunal's complaint form, filed as part of P&L's complaint on September 30, 2005.
10 . Comments on the GIR, paragraph 14.
11 . Complaint, Tabs 3 and 4.
12 . GIR, paragraph 5.
13 . AIT, Article 501.
