LeBreton Flats process unusually open, fairness monitor says
Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 15, 2016 | Last Updated: February 15, 2016 11:13 AM EST
Complaints about the secrecy of the National Capital Commission’s LeBreton Flats redevelopment process are misguided, says Louise Panneton, the project’s fairness monitor.
In fact, compared to other major developments involving the public sector, the LeBreton process has been unusually open, Panneton tells the Citizen’s Don Butler.
Q: You’re joking, right?
A: Not at all, says Panneton, who has been involved in more than 100 “fairness mandates” for large development or construction projects.
“Based on our experience, we really think the NCC’s gone to great lengths to incorporate public input into the process,” she says. “It’s really not the norm to have that much public exposure during the procurement process.”
Q: What is typically done?
A: In most large procurements, government departments or agencies get public input up front and use it to inform the project’s objectives and evaluation criteria, Panneton says. After that, though “there’s a real lockdown (of information) all the way until the selection of the preferred proponent.”
Q: Are proponents ever allowed to speak publicly during a procurement process?
A: “I have not personally been involved in a procurement where they are permitted to openly talk about the procurement process, their proposals or their competitors’ proposal,” Panneton says.
Q: Anything else?
A: The NCC released its RFP (Request for Proposals) document in December, when it announced that it had received proposals for LeBreton Flats from two private-sector development groups.
Typically the RFP — which lays out a project’s objectives and selection process — is only made public at the end of the process, once the preferred proponent has been chosen, Panneton says.
Q: Why so much secrecy?
A: It’s all about making the process as fair as possible. “The concern from a fairness perspective is to ensure there’s not undue influence and that the evaluators are really considering the information based on the process that was set out (in the RFP).”
Q: Why did the NCC depart from the standard secrecy script?
A: The NCC was “really adamant” that it wanted to exhibit the two proposals publicly and get public feedback, Panneton says. “That was very critical to them. The purpose was to obtain the public input that will feed into the evaluation in a formal way.”
Q: Does that cause you any concern?
A: “We don’t have any concerns from a fairness perspective,” she says. “The NCC, every step of the way, have done all the right things to make sure their process is safeguarded.”
Q: What about the NCC’s decision to extend the period during which the proponents could speak publicly about their plans to Feb. 8?
A: That was “acceptable from a fairness perspective,” Panneton says, because it was done in a “managed, respectful manner. What really is important is that the NCC was clear they wanted to go through a public consultation process and they developed a really good process that was sound and equitable.”
dbutler@postmedia.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...irness-monitor
Prev
Linear Mode
