Who knew it was wrong
to award a billion-dollar no-bid public contract
to the organization that hired your mom?
– Andrew Coyne, Globe and Mail (paywalled)
The current hoo-haa in Canada over a (now withdrawn) sole-source contract awarded to WE charity has hit even American papers. And BBC News.
Andrew Coyne (quoted above) is one of Canada’s least-partisan journalists, IMHO. I would just point out that there are two values for the contract:
If I were using this contract in an experience section, I would state both values really (really) clearly and I wouldn’t round-up the “funds administered” value to $1 billion.
This is not a restraint-in-headline-writing or an ethics-in-governance blog, so I’m just offering two links to the official rules governing sole-source contracting in Canada, for those who want to know.
Supply Manual, article 3.15 Non-competitive contracting process
Note this clause:
However, contracts may be entered into without soliciting bids when:
And this clause:
The exception should only be invoked where patents, copyright requirements, or technical compatibility factors and technological expertise suggest that only one contractor exists.
And here’s an excellent post on best practices in issuing sole-source contracts in the federal government.
Canadian Government Executive: Considering a sole-source contract?
While the opposition refers to a “sole-source contract”, this was a contribution agreement, governed by the rules on transfer payments, not a procurement that required a tendering process. There was nothing inherently wrong in striking a deal with WE without calling for bids.
– John Ivison, National Post
I’d never heard of contribution agreements, maybe because no company I worked for was ever trying to get one. Live and learn, I guess, although it will take someone with more patience or time on their hands to sort through the Treasury Board Directive on Transfer Payments or their 131-page document with guidelines governing transfer payments.
And we learn again, if we needed to, that even if you read it in the papers it ain’t necessarily so. Maybe especially when it comes to contracting.
This report can be read
in 12 minutes.
In 1935, Morris Llewellyn Cooke submitted a proposal to President Roosevelt and his Cabinet.
The subject? Farm electrification.
The proposed method? Farmer cooperatives (pay $5 to join) plus some government help.
The results? Proposal accepted. Within 7 years, 5 out of 10 American farms were connected to the grid, compared to 1 out of 10 in 1935.
So what’s with the quote?
[Cooke] prepared a formal proposal, now renowned in bureaucratic history for being boldly bound in black-and-white zebra stripes and illustrated with attractive watercolors of bright red barns, with a note on the cover stating, “This report can be read in 12 minutes.”
– The Men Who United the States (pg 380), Simon Winchester
When you know what you want to say, it doesn’t take long to say it. Or write it. Or read it.
Blessings upon you.
– Evaluators, then as now
We don’t usually time how long it takes to read our proposals. Maybe we should. The black-and-white zebra stripes are optional.
At one level, a summary description of the Work and what it comprises: the contractor’s responsibilities.
At another level, the line-by-line specification of the Work that governs exactly what the contractor is obligated to provide.
Not acronymized as SOW, although it obviously could have been. SOW always refers to the Statement of Work.
People contribute what they can.
This is something I’ve heard more than once, usually when ranting about getting spell-checkers and typo-alerters and colour-pallete-criticizers when what I wanted was compliance-confirmers or solution-improvers or presentation-enhancers.
People contribute what they can.
It’s true: They do, and I do, and not a mite more.