Integrity in Government Procurement

"Canadians count on our public service acting honestly, fairly and with the utmost integrity.... When it does not adhere to fundamental principles of good governance and fairness in important matters such as the procurement of goods and services, the courts and the public are shocked, breeding cynicism and lack of respect for our institutions.
"There is also no argument that the issues raised in this action were important to the law of procurement in Canada. The case involved a significant contract that negatively affected the relocation industry in Canada and exposed a serious lack of oversight and misconduct on the part of government officers who acted in a contemptuous fashion."
Ontario Superior Court Justice Peter Annis

Justice Annis awarded Envoy Relocation Services full costs in its legal battle against a government department: PWGSC. Where bureaucrats charged to approve contracts for relocation of public servants in the case of the military, the RCMP and bureaucrats at Foreign Affairs take new postings have their possessions moved to complement those new postings. Justice Annis was so enraged over bureaucratic incompetence he awarded Envoy Relocation Services $40-million representing the full costs of its legal battle against the rigging of a 2004 contract.

The ruling in favour of Envoy gave it $32-million in lost profits along with $3-million in interest and $4.7-million in costs, representing a rare award, reflecting the court's disgust with bureaucratic misconduct. A report by then-auditor-general Sheila Fraser had concluded that the 2004 bidding process in which Envoy Relocation Services lost a profitable contract to low-bidding insider Royal Lepage Relocation Services gave Envoy the impetus it needed to persevere in its lawsuit.

Royal Lepage Relocation Services as the incumbent service provider, with a system in operation was favoured to begin with, but it had an additional advantage in its use of inside knowledge, bidding for property management services at zero, because it know few transferees used that particular service. Despite which, on winning the contract, any transferees that did opt to use the service that RLRS stated it would perform at no charge, did in the end see themselves inconvenienced by the imposition of  "authorized" charges.

Connivance by bureaucrats to enable RLRS to win the contract was a primary issue, and when Public Works and Government Services bureaucrats aided its contract win, they corrupted the process and enabled the incumbent to produce a bid that Envoy couldn't match, through underhanded advantage. Even when RLRS was charging for property management in contrast to their pledge not to, key bureaucrats did nothing. They also withheld evidence on which the case turned, when Envoy turned to the courts for satisfaction.

"The concealment of crucial evidence that played a major role in the outcome of the case and misled the court is grave misconduct. Moreover, this conduct was intended to conceal significant deliberate reprehensible conduct prior to litigation", ruled Justice Annis. That misconduct meant Envoy exhausted all legal avenues, representing a "scurrilous attack on the administration of justice". Justice, however, did prevail.