Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You provide a strong analysis of the direction public procurement is heading and clearly explain why the role is becoming more strategic. I agree with your point that balancing resilience, technology adoption, and ESG goals will be difficult because each priority can sometimes conflict with cost efficiency and accessibility for suppliers. Your concern about SMEs being unintentionally excluded by complex requirements is especially important and often overlooked. Overall, your views highlight the need for procurement systems that are both innovative and fair.
While those of us working under trade agreements continue to follow them, the bigger question is whether these agreements still work when major trading partners choose to ignore or reinterpret them. Canada is still bound by its trade obligations unless agreements are formally changed or suspended, but procurement professionals are increasingly working in an environment where political priorities and economic pressures sometimes outweigh the original intent of those agreements.
The U.S. has long used tools like Buy American policies, national security exemptions, and industry-specific protections, while Canada has traditionally taken a more open, rules-based approach. This raises the question of whether Canada can continue operating that way if key trading partners move further toward economic protectionism.
As a result, procurement professionals are being asked to balance trade obligations, political direction, economic development goals, affordability pressures, and public expectations — and those priorities do not always line up.
This underscores that poorly drafted mandatory response and performance requirements can create legal exposure. The specifications may have excluded qualified bidders or in this case created uncertainty that led to post-award litigation because it was framed as mandatory performance. It should have been written as “Must have transfer station established by X date after award” It reinforces having a close review of your documents to allow vendor participation while protecting the operational needs of the organization.
Procurement is now on the front line of global risk as supply chain disruptions, cyber threats, and geopolitical tensions keep increasing. Companies are trying to balance keeping costs low with building more resilient supply chains, while also responding to pressure for more local sourcing. Because of this, procurement has become much more strategic and political, not just operational.
You all are bringing up such valid points, in particular introducing the AI aspect. AI systems trained on historical data can learn patterns that favor larger, more established suppliers, because they’ve historically won more bids. This can disadvantage smaller or underrepresented vendors, particularly those who may lack access to advanced tools to prepare competitive proposals, as we experience being in an area with a significant amount of ‘Mom and Pop’ businesses. While AI can support some aspects of the process it should rely on having human oversight to ensure transparency and fairness for all bidders.
Issues exactly like this are what prompted us to shore up our procurement policy to include group procurement to give ourselves just one more tool in the tool kit. Not always the better option budget wise but other times it does given the cost savings of time and effort to put together an RFP.
Being from a smaller area we have always struggled with supply chain and covid and current issues make it no less challenging but given that there is always seems to be another issue around the corner we have to keep adapting and focus on resilience, local sourcing, and long-term value instead of just lowest cost.
Over the next five years, procurement teams will likely face growing budget pressure along with higher expectations.
Rising costs and tighter budgets will make it harder to deliver real savings while still driving innovation and social value. At the same time, there will be a need to keep on top of risk, sustainability goals, and compliance, which will all add to this challenge.
You are correct, ignoring the warning on the part of the general contractor shows great leadership failure and continuing to work on the part of the subcontractor shows accountability but we there also is a power dynamic and Vasco may not have felt full freedom to refuse the job in order to keep his job security, even though he should have.
I have been advocating for years that we have a dedicated contract manager as the individual department managers don’t have the capacity to follow up every project contract and unfortunately problems like this do arise when you are not able to be as ‘hands-on’ every project. At the very least being proactive from the beginning of the project would have caught the issue and rectified the problem.
OCHC failed at oversight but Argo committed fraud so you are correct in that unless we are conducting oversight on our contracts and billings then we are open to some vendors taking advantage of a lack system or policies.
I agree, it doesn’t appear that E.G Spence has suffered any loss of profit so other that court expenses the repercussions would fall on Mantario to correct their RFP process and re-evaluate or re-issue the tender.
Think you are correct and this would come down to contributory negligence, they were both a party to the accident and would have to plead their case as to what degree they each played in the fire happening and taking any measures to prevent it from happening.
Our Finance Department are champions, they are the ones that pick up on the discrepancies most time before Managers and even Project Managers notice that something does not look quite right. Something as small as re-adding an invoice can go along way but independent verification should still be required as even with technology numbers can still be transposed or entered in error.
This disconnect is what we experience even with the detail written into the contract of the scope to be performed or of the invoice detail to be submitted when we don’t have the bodies available to verify the work being done things will go under the radar. For larger projects we can bring on a project manager to oversee all facets from the work being done to the billing but the day-to-day functions, it becomes impossible for one parks person who is looking after six parks over a span of hundreds of miles to verify if the actual amount of hand sanitizer a contractor purchased made it to the facility. It becomes trust and looking for any anomalies.
Instructor Comment
Now you are getting deeper into the broader discussion about accountability and proper resourcing.
Procurement can draft an RFP and Contract with great language, KPI’s and processes in some cases to no avail.
If the Operations Department utilizing the Vendor cannot, or will not “contract manage” properly what should be done?
This is a common circumstance and a longer conversation. As for bathroom checks…there’s an app for that! ( your point is made)I would agree, CFTA remedies are corrective and not putative so they would require the bids be re-evaluated based on the 475 inspections to redetermine the winning bid or cancel the contract for re-tender as it doesn’t appear work has began. This would likely keep them out of court and risk higher court costs and further reputation damage.
