MANITOBA
MANITOBA
O
MBUDSMAN
OMBUDSMAN
Report on Flood-Fighting Equipment for the
Interlake Emergency Operations Centre:
The Tiger Dams Proposal

January 2016

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 1

 Prepared by

Manitoba Ombudsman

January 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
OMBUDSMAN JURISDICTION AND ROLE ........................................................................................... 6
THE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 6
KEY ISSUE

............................................................................................................................................ 7

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 7
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................... 9
FACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 9
1. Commitment to fund flood-fighting equipment .................................................................................... 9
2. Initial funding and equipment choice.................................................................................................. 13
3. Tendering process ............................................................................................................................... 22
4. Building Manitoba Fund ..................................................................................................................... 27
5. Current status of the file ...................................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 29
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX: Timeline of key dates ............................................................................................................ 35

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 3

 INTRODUCTION
In June 2015, I was asked by the province to review the process undertaken by the Manitoba
government in committing to and procuring flood-fighting equipment for the Interlake Reserves
Tribal Council (IRTC) in 2014 and 2015. This issue of purchasing flood-fighting equipment first
came to the ombudsman’s attention through a whistleblower disclosure in November 2014 and
was subsequently deemed resolved by this office. The complaint raised a number of issues,
including some very specific allegations concerning decisions of elected officials. The details of
the complaint were made public in the media in June 2015.
While it is not unheard of for a department or provincial government to seek the assistance of an
independent office to review an issue, I am not aware of a case where the government of the day
has publicly asked the Manitoba Ombudsman to investigate a matter, particularly one that has
already been deemed resolved under another act (The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower
Protection) Act) under which the ombudsman has jurisdiction. This made for a unique
circumstance.
The decision about whether to undertake this investigation took into consideration many factors.
These included:
 the political nature of the discussions and any potential impact they could have on my
office’s ability to investigate and report outcomes in a way that would be received as
neutral and fact-based
 legislative limitations that would prohibit an investigation of several of the allegations
that had been raised, and
 whether there was an administrative issue that merited review
Ultimately I chose to initiate an investigation under The Ombudsman Act into whether the
provincial civil service had followed all applicable law and policy in committing to and
procuring flood-fighting equipment for IRTC, which is a partnership of five First Nation
communities in the Interlake. Our investigation focused primarily on the timeframe between July
2014 and March 2015.
In deciding to undertake the investigation, I strongly considered the limitations on my office’s
ability to investigate all concerns that had been raised in relation to the purchase of floodfighting equipment. Section 18(a) of The Ombudsman Act states:
Restriction on jurisdiction
18. Nothing in this Act authorizes the Ombudsman to investigate
(a) any decision, recommendation, act, order or omission of the Legislature, the
assembly, the Lieutenant Governor, a committee of the assembly, the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, the Executive Council, or a committee of the Executive
Council; […]

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 4

 Our mandate under The Ombudsman Act is to review matters of administration which, broadly
defined, could include any practice, procedure, action or decision that public bodies make as they
implement or administer laws and policies. To further emphasize the distinction: once the
political direction has been set, it is the carrying out of that direction that could be considered a
matter of administration.
Sometimes this distinction is clear and roles and responsibilities are well understood. However,
in some cases administrative functions and political decision making can be closely aligned or
overlap and this can make the duties of civil servants more challenging to carry out, as well as
make investigating administrative issues and concerns challenging for my office.
In December 2013, Manitoba Ombudsman released a report titled “Report on Complaint of
Alleged Partisan Action by Civil Servant”1. While our current investigation was not concerned
with partisan activities, that report provides some useful analysis regarding management of
political and administrative overlap. Some of the themes found in that report were observed in
this investigation as well.
Administrative processes exist within the Manitoba civil service that must be followed in order
to carry out any decision or direction related to funding and procuring flood-fighting equipment.
I initiated this investigation because I believed that reviewing whether those administrative
processes were followed would help provide some clarity about how the process unfolded, who
was involved and why the procurement was undertaken. The intent of this investigation is to
provide a fuller picture of what happened in this case and will, I hope, be of benefit to both the
province and the public.
This report focuses on the processes related to the initial commitment to fund equipment, the
process to seek funding approval from Treasury Board and the procurement process. While the
scope of this investigation did not include the decision making of cabinet, cabinet committees,
members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the Interlake Reserves Tribal Council or
other levels of government as it relates to this issue, we did make several observations with
respect to the interaction of the political and administrative levels of government in this process.
Due to the nature of this issue, it is almost impossible not to comment on this interaction
inasmuch as it provides relevant context to the facts and findings in the report. We have been
judicious to ensure that our investigation and report respect the jurisdictional limitations of our
office.
It should also be noted that the role of this office and the objective of this report are not to
comment on the appropriateness of any political decisions or commitments related to floodfighting in Manitoba, nor are we commenting on decisions by First Nations or the federal
government in this matter.
Lastly, I would not want the findings of this report to be seen as a deterrent to any public bodies
in working with flood-affected communities in either an emergency capacity or preventative
manner. The aim of this report is to look at whether there are any administrative improvements
1

https://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/uploads/document/files/report-on-complaint-of-alleged-partisan-action-by-civilservant-en.pdf

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 5

 that can be made to strengthen processes and help prevent similar issues from being raised in the
future.
Acknowledgments
The investigation team was made up of five staff who reviewed hundreds of pages of documents
and interviewed over a dozen current and former provincial staff.
I would like to acknowledge the full cooperation my office received from all who participated in
this investigation and for the efforts and contributions of the investigation team.

OMBUDSMAN JURISDICTION AND ROLE
Manitoba Ombudsman is an independent office of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba,
reporting to the assembly through the Office of the Speaker. The responsibilities and authority of
the ombudsman are set out in The Ombudsman Act, The Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, The Personal Health Information Act, and The Public Interest Disclosure
(Whistleblower Protection) Act.
Under The Ombudsman Act, Manitoba Ombudsman investigates administrative actions and
decisions made by government departments and agencies, and municipalities, and their officers
and employees. Investigations may be undertaken on the basis of a written complaint from a
member of the public, or upon the ombudsman’s own initiative.
Ombudsman investigations typically assess administrative actions taken or decisions made
against a benchmark established by government. Sometimes that benchmark is provincial
legislation. On other occasions, it is written policy or established procedures implemented to
give effect to legislative purpose. In cases concerning an impact on individual rights or benefits,
we also examine the fairness of the action or decision.

THE INVESTIGATION
On November 10, 2014, our office received a whistleblower disclosure that alleged wrongdoing
by Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT). It focused on concerns related to the
absence of tendering for a $5 million contract to purchase “Tiger Dam” equipment, which is a
specific brand and type of flood-protection equipment, for an Emergency Operations Centre in
the Interlake region of Manitoba. At that time, pursuant to section 13 of The Public Interest
Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, the former acting ombudsman used his discretion to
take steps to resolve the matter by referring it to the clerk of the executive council. The clerk
subsequently informed the acting ombudsman that the contract for the equipment was going to
be tendered. The contract was then put out for public tender in December 2014. As the tendering
of this contract effectively dealt with the substantive alleged wrongdoing at issue, our office
deemed this file resolved.
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 6

 On June 23, 2015, the clerk wrote to our office and indicated that the premier had directed him to
request that our office “consider conducting a fulsome review of the concerns raised by the
whistleblower on the matter, including the commitment to and procurement of flood-fighting
equipment for the Emergency Operations Centre, to ensure that all appropriate processes had
been followed.”
Given that the original alleged wrongdoing did not transpire and no new disclosure was received,
our office did not re-open this file as a whistleblower investigation. However, the information
provided to our office and discussed publicly did relate to matters of administration within the
jurisdiction of The Ombudsman Act.
Given the administrative matters involved, and the ongoing public interest in this issue, an
investigation was opened under section 15(a) of The Ombudsman Act, which states the
following:
15. The Ombudsman may, on a written complaint or on his own initiative,
investigate
(a) any decision or recommendation made, including any recommendation made
to a minister, or any act done or omitted, relating to a matter of administration in
or by any department or agency of the government, or by any officer, employee or
member thereof, whereby any person is or may be aggrieved; […]

KEY ISSUE
Our office investigated the following issue:


Were provincial administrative actions and decisions regarding the commitment to
and procurement of flood-fighting equipment for the Interlake Reserves Tribal
Council consistent with requirements in legislation and policy?

BACKGROUND
The province of Manitoba is vulnerable to seasonal flooding and experienced particularly major
flooding in 1997, 2009, 2011 and 2014.
First Nation communities in Manitoba were extensively affected by the 2011 flood, which was
the largest spring runoff in provincial history. According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada (AANDC), the flood resulted in the evacuation of individuals from 18 First
Nation communities in the province. As of June 26, 2015, approximately 1,300 First Nation
residents had returned to their home communities, but 1,926 individuals remained evacuated. Of
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 7

 those, more than 1,700 people were from four First Nation communities in the Interlake region
of Manitoba: Lake St. Martin, Little Saskatchewan, Dauphin River and Pinaymootang.
Peguis First Nation, which is located in the Interlake and is the largest First Nation community in
Manitoba, also experienced flooding in 2011. Six hundred and ninety-three (693) residents of the
community were evacuated that year. There were also partial evacuations of the community due
to flooding in 2004, 2009, 2010 and 2014. In 2014, there were 135 individuals evacuated from
the community in the spring flood and 50 additional evacuees that summer due to heavy rain.
Both the Canada and Manitoba governments support flood-fighting on First Nation communities.
AANDC is the federal government department that supports First Nation communities with
emergency management, including flooding emergencies. Manitoba Infrastructure and
Transportation (MIT) is also involved. The MIT Water Management and Structures division and
MIT’s Emergency Measures Organization work with AANDC to communicate flood forecasting
to First Nations and coordinate access to provincial resources and support.
Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs also works with First Nation communities and other
levels of government to support Manitoba First Nation communities on a variety of issues,
including flood-fighting efforts.
The province has an assortment of equipment in its inventory to fight floods in Manitoba,
including sandbags, sandbag machines, mobile pumps, icebreakers, ice-cutting machines, heavyduty steamers, cage barriers and water-filled barriers.
Some of this equipment, including water-filled barriers, can be deployed quickly. This is called
“rapid response” equipment.
Water-filled barriers are a type of flood protection equipment that, when deployed, can be filled
with water in order to protect property without the need for sandbags. They are a complex
product that require training to effectively deploy. An advantage of water-filled barriers (also
known as flood tubes) is that they can be deployed quickly and with less labour than equipment
like sand bags may require. Various companies produce water-filled barriers. One brand of
water-filled barriers is the Tiger Dam system (Tiger Dams), which is produced by a company
called International Flood Control. The company supplies Tiger Dams in different sizes and
formats, including Standard Emergency Response Trailers, which are trailers equipped with
Tiger Dams and equipment needed for rapid deployment that can be towed by a pick-up truck.
On February 25, 2014, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC), an organization that advocates
on issues that affect the First Nations of Manitoba, submitted a proposal to the province and the
federal government to initiate a discussion on a coordinated rapid response flood protection plan
through the establishment of Emergency Operations Centres in First Nation communities in
Manitoba. The proposal was that these centres would be regional hubs of flood prevention
equipment and trained personnel, and would build flood prevention capacity for First Nation
communities in the province.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 8

 The AMC proposed to establish the first of these Emergency Operations Centres in the Interlake
region of Manitoba. This regional centre was inspired by the establishment of the North Red
Waterway Maintenance consortium, which is a group of municipalities along the Red River that
provides a centralized flood response for their region and received a grant from the provincial
government for flood prevention equipment.
The evidence indicates that while the province is of the view that the federal government is
responsible for emergency management on First Nation communities, the province supported the
AMC approach to increase emergency management capacity for First Nation communities in
Manitoba and wanted to participate in some way.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Our investigation included the following:


Review of documentary evidence provided by the (now former) clerk of the executive
council, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT), Manitoba Municipal
Government, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat and
the Procurement Services Branch.



Review of relevant legislation and policy, including The Financial Administration Act,
The Government Purchases Act, The Municipal Taxation and Funding Act, the
Procurement Administration Manual, the General Manual of Administration, the
Treasury Board Handbook, and MIT departmental policies related to procurement.



Interviews with several individuals, including the (now former) clerk of the executive
council, as well as former and current senior staff of MIT, Manitoba Municipal
Government, Treasury Board Secretariat, the Procurement Services Branch and the
government of Manitoba comptroller’s office;



Interviews with the minister of MIT and the minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.



An interview with the former chair of IRTC. We also attempted to consult the current
IRTC chair.

FACTS AND ANALYSIS
1. Commitment to fund flood-fighting equipment
On July 25, 2014, the Manitoba government issued a news release in which the minister of MIT
and the minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs publicly announced that discussions were

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 9

 underway regarding an Emergency Operations Centre for First Nation communities in the
Interlake region:
The Manitoba government is […] undertaking discussions with the federal
government to establish an Emergency Operations Centre to provide First
Nations in the Interlake with a rapid flood-fighting arsenal, Infrastructure and
Transportation Minister Steve Ashton and Aboriginal and Northern Affairs
Minister Eric Robinson announced today following a tour of flood-affected areas
in the Interlake. […]
“The increased severity and frequency of flooding create a serious challenge in
the Interlake and First Nation communities have been disproportionately and
most significantly affected,” said Minister Robinson. “Working with the federal
government to create a permanent Emergency Operations Centre will help
address current flood protection vulnerabilities, while we also work together on
long-term solutions.”
The minister said such a centre would be the first Emergency Operations Centre
for First Nations in Canada. The idea was proposed by the Interlake Reserves
Tribal Council and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs after the success of the North
Red Waterway Maintenance consortium, which centralizes flood response for
communities along the Red River north of Winnipeg. Initial plans for the centre
include rapid-response flood equipment stationed centrally in the Lake St. Martin
area.
Prior to this news release, on July 18, 2014, the minister of MIT wrote to the chair of IRTC and
confirmed that the Manitoba government was committed to fund up to $5 million of floodfighting equipment for the creation of an Emergency Operations Centre in the Interlake. The
equipment was a component of the AMC proposal for emergency management in Manitoba First
Nation communities.
While the news release stated that the initial plan was for the equipment to be stationed in the
Lake St. Martin area, IRTC subsequently indicated that it wanted the equipment stored at Peguis
First Nation. We reviewed evidence that Peguis First Nation had experience with flood
protection in its community and had individuals who were trained on the use of Tiger Dams
(which it had in its inventory) and wanted to help support other First Nation communities in the
Interlake by sharing its expertise and helping them build flood protection capacity.
The evidence we reviewed from the province indicates that in addition to providing support to
First Nation flood-fighting and mitigation, the funding was also committed in order to obtain
support from First Nations located around Lake St. Martin to open the Lake St. Martin
emergency outlet to full capacity.
We asked the minister of MIT for written comments that we could share in this report regarding
what factors contributed to the funding commitment. He indicated the following:

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 10

 In July 2014 Manitoba was faced with significant flooding on Lake Manitoba and
Lake St. Martin. As a result, the Department began to open up the Lake St. Martin
emergency outlet that was built and operated during the 2011 flood.
A protest was initiated by fishers and a Councillor with Pinaymootang and was
soon supported by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Interlake Reserves
Tribal Council. They identified the need for improved flood mitigation and
compensation for fishers as key issues.
Given the flood, emergency government officials immediately met with the First
Nations in July in an effort to resolve this impasse. Manitoba was already
committed publicly to compensating fishers and formally committed to this in
principle.
The Department recognized the fact that AMC and the Interlake First Nations had
put forward a proposal to both the Federal and Provincial governments in the
spring of 2014 to establish First Nations Emergency Operation Centres in the
most flood impacted areas. The offer of the $5 million reflected the desire to make
a significant offer of commitment to flood mitigation while at the same time
recognizing the potential for significant funding from the federal government. $5
million would be one third of the original $15 million proposal.
The minister advised our office that the province’s response to issues regarding the Lake St.
Martin emergency outlet was similar to its response to other flood issues. He stated that the
province identified the specific issues involved, developed a negotiating response, and then
engaged in negotiations with the First Nations to reach an agreement in principle. He also
advised that the province needed to operate the emergency outlet to its full capacity, which could
not be done without resolving the dispute with the First Nations.
The evidence indicates that this commitment was made before the department obtained official
spending approval from Treasury Board. Our understanding from the senior civil servants we
interviewed is that they were aware of the province’s support for the Emergency Operations
Centre strategy for First Nations, but were not aware of the $5 million commitment before it was
made on July 18, 2014.
We note that the proposal for the strategy was also discussed at the Aboriginal Issues Committee
of cabinet. The role of this committee is to review government programs, initiatives and issues
related to First Nations. It supported working with Manitoba First Nations’ groups on increasing
emergency management capacity among Manitoba’s First Nation communities. We note that this
committee has a policy role and does not have the authority to approve funding requests.
Applicable requirements
Treasury Board is a committee of the provincial cabinet that is responsible for the overall fiscal
management and financial reporting of the Manitoba government. Its responsibilities include
making decisions on in-year departmental submissions to augment or vary proposed spending
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 11

 plans. Treasury Board consists of the minister of Manitoba Finance and other ministers
appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The role of the Treasury Board Secretariat is to provide financial and analytical support and
advice to Treasury Board. Departments must forward a submission to the Treasury Board
Secretariat in order to have an item addressed by Treasury Board. It must be signed by the
minister and deputy minister of the department providing the submission.
Section 1.3 of the province’s General Manual of Administration states that approval
requirements for the expenditure of public funds must be in place before making arrangements
for the commitment of public funds. However, the General Manual of Administration defines
“commitment” as “any obligation, by way of contract, purchase order, standing order or
agreement, for which payment will be made when the goods are received, services rendered or
the obligation otherwise fulfilled.”
Individuals we consulted at the Treasury Board Secretariat indicate that this is understood to
essentially mean that the required approval must be in place before there is a commitment to
purchase specific goods or services. In this case, the commitment was to fund up to $5 million of
rapid response flood-fighting equipment for the creation of an Emergency Operations Centre, but
there was no indication at that time of what specific equipment would be funded and when the
funding would be provided.
As such, while Treasury Board approval was required before MIT would be able to implement
the commitment and pay for the equipment, we are not aware of any legislation or policy that
requires a minister to obtain Treasury Board approval before making a funding commitment like
the one the MIT minister made to IRTC on July 18, 2014. The previous chair of IRTC indicated
to us it was understood that the commitment in July 2014 was made in principle and that further
approval of the expenditure was required. The evidence also demonstrates that MIT always
intended to seek Treasury Board approval for this funding and there was no evidence that the
department attempted to circumvent this process through the Aboriginal Issues Committee of
cabinet or other means.
However, the evidence we obtained also indicates that when commitments involving dollar
amounts are made before the necessary Treasury Board approval is provided, it can complicate
the administrative processes required to carry out a direction, including the process of identifying
an appropriate funding source. Senior central government staff we interviewed indicated that
while it is not common that such political commitments are made before obtaining any necessary
Treasury Board approval, it is not unheard of. As well, while such commitments will not
guarantee funding approval, they can be perceived to put pressure on government to meet the
commitment.
In this case, because the decision to commit funding for equipment prior to obtaining Treasury
Board approval was a ministerial, or in effect, a political decision and not an administrative one,
it is not within our jurisdiction to comment on this matter. However, we document this evidence
to provide context for the commitment and to reference the relationship between political
decision making and the administrative approval process in this instance.
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 12

 2. Initial funding and equipment choice
After the minister of MIT made the commitment to IRTC to fund up to $5 million of floodfighting equipment, MIT staff proceeded to ask IRTC what equipment it felt should be
purchased. We were told that the minister subsequently directed MIT to prepare a Treasury
Board submission that recommended purchasing $5 million of Tiger Dams for IRTC through an
untendered contract.
A Treasury Board submission was required in this file because the General Manual of
Administration requires Treasury Board spending approval for any untendered purchase above
$50,000. We note that the General Manual of Administration also requires Treasury Board
approval for tendered purchases above $500,000 if the low bid is accepted (and for tendered
purchases above $100,000 if the lowest bid is not accepted).
Document labelled “invoice”
On August 5, 2014, IRTC sent the province a letter regarding what equipment it felt should be
purchased as a result of the commitment to fund flood-fighting equipment. IRTC enclosed a
document that International Flood Control sent it on July 30, 2014. The document was labelled
as an invoice, signed by IRTC and indicated that 33 Standard Emergency Response Trailers
containing Tiger Dams and equipment needed for Tiger Dams deployment would cost $5
million.
All the current and former civil servants we spoke with who saw this document indicated their
surprise and concern regarding this document and immediately questioned its purpose. The
evidence we reviewed indicated that there was confusion regarding the intent of the document
and why IRTC provided it to the province, including concerns that the equipment had been
purchased and that the province would be contractually liable based on the initial commitment
made.
There is evidence that on September 2, 2014, the minister of MIT spoke with the chair of IRTC
to discuss this document and we were advised that IRTC was told that the province did not think
the invoice was appropriate or reflective of discussions to that point. While we could not
accurately confirm the details of this conversation, the evidence we obtained demonstrated that
the document was a request from IRTC for a specific list of the equipment it wanted the province
to purchase with the $5 million commitment. The former chair of IRTC told us that there was no
intention or plan to have IRTC purchase the equipment and subsequently ask the province to
reimburse it. Despite the fact that the document was labelled “invoice” and that there was some
suggestion that the equipment had been ordered by IRTC, we were not provided with any
evidence that confirmed IRTC had actually purchased the equipment prior to sending this
document to the province.
On September 3, 2014, the minister of MIT wrote a letter to the chair of IRTC acknowledging
receipt of the invoice for the purchase of flood-fighting equipment, and indicating that
Emergency Measures Organization staff would work with IRTC to finalize the details and
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 13

 provide financial support towards the purchase of the flood-fighting inventory. We note that this
letter acknowledges the International Flood Control document as an “invoice.” However, the
evidence we reviewed indicates that ultimately the department viewed the document as a request
for specific equipment and not as an actual invoice or a request for payment.
MIT’s proposal
On September 17, 2014, MIT put forward its Treasury Board submission seeking spending
approval for $5 million of flood prevention equipment from International Flood Control for
IRTC that would be owned by the province and therefore funded with the provincial capital
budget. It was proposed that 33 trailers of Tiger Dams would be purchased and stored at a First
Nation Emergency Operations Centre in the Interlake region of Manitoba. It was further
proposed that the province would negotiate a bilateral agreement with IRTC for use and
maintenance of the equipment. We understand that the province’s intent was that while the
equipment would be stored at the Interlake Emergency Operations Centre and be for the use of
First Nations, the equipment could also be deployed elsewhere in the province when needed.
MIT departmental policy requires that the assistant deputy minister (ADM) of finance and
administration review a Treasury Board submission before it goes to the deputy minister for
signature. Given that the submission proposed that $5 million for the equipment be taken from
the department’s capital budget, the ADM at that time stated that when he was reviewing the
submission he contacted the comptroller’s office to see if the capital budget could be used for
this purchase. His recollection is that the comptroller’s office identified a number of criteria that
had to be met for the equipment to be purchased as a capital asset. He said MIT’s responsibility
was to ensure that if it used its capital budget for this purchase, the right criteria for the
equipment needed to be in place.
The evidence we reviewed indicates that departmental staff felt the capital budget was not an
ideal funding source for the equipment and a grant for the equipment would have been a more
appropriate arrangement, but that grant funding within MIT was not available to fulfill the $5
million commitment. We understand that if Treasury Board approved the use of capital funding
for this equipment, the department would initiate discussions with IRTC about an agreement for
the care and custody of the equipment. We were also told that the department did not want to
start these discussions until it was sure that a funding source was in place. The ADM for MIT’s
Emergency Measures Organization indicated that the negotiation of such an agreement for the
care and custody of equipment purchased with the province’s capital budget was a new idea and
in his experience, had not been tried before. However, his understanding was that it was not
impossible to do in the framework of capital spending.
Concerns raised
When the Treasury Board Secretariat receives a submission, it prepares an analysis that
highlights issues or concerns with the submission and provides a recommendation for Treasury
Board to consider.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 14

 When Treasury Board Secretariat analyzes a submission, it will often ask the requesting
department that submitted it various questions and will review the department’s position from a
corporate perspective. In this case, the secretariat asked the department questions about the
submission and the department provided further information.
The evidence we obtained indicates that there were several concerns with the initial proposal.
Concerns raised to the department included: the use of the capital budget to purchase the
equipment and assurance that the ownership, care and custody arrangement was consistent with
accounting standards; the justification for proposing a sole source, untendered contract, given
that there was more than one supplier the department has used in the past for this kind of
equipment and no compelling reason provided to not tender; and that the information provided
by the department did not clarify that purchasing this equipment was the optimum solution for
preventing further flooding, ensuring safety and providing support and training to the First
Nation communities.
Analysis
Requirements for Treasury Board submissions
Our office was provided a verbal description of the content of the department’s submission. We
are satisfied that we obtained a sufficient understanding of the content and intent of the
submission from the individuals we interviewed as well as from other documentary evidence we
reviewed related to the proposal.
The Treasury Board Secretariat has guidelines for the preparation of Treasury Board submissions
that set out specific format and content requirements. However, the evidence we reviewed
indicated that the secretariat’s concerns and questions about the submission did not focus on the
format of the submission. Rather, the concerns focused on the justification for purchasing this
type of equipment and the request to waive a competitive tendering process, as well as the
funding source and ownership structure for the equipment (as explained above).
Research and analysis
The Procurement Administration Manual (the PAM) sets out policies, guidelines and procedures
for the minimum requirements and standards for provincial government procurement. The
province’s Procurement Services Branch (PSB) is responsible for the development of the PAM.
The PAM indicates that the first stage of procurement is the planning phase and that the first step
of this phase is to undertake “requirements planning.” The PAM lists the various steps that occur
throughout this stage, including “verify past usage and quantities to be ordered, updating of
specifications, review of supplier performance” and “research and analysis including […]
undertake a cost benefit analysis (value-for-money) for the goods or services being selected over
alternates in the market.” The PAM states that it is also during the “requirements planning” step
that a department obtains necessary pre-approvals, such as Treasury Board approval. The PAM
indicates that once the “requirements planning” step is complete, the next step is to define the
requirement and then determine the procurement strategy by assessing methods of solicitation.
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 15

 No MIT staff we interviewed knew of research the department had conducted or considered
regarding the flood protection needs for First Nation communities in the Interlake region of the
province or for the purchase of $5 million of Tiger Dams, despite the guidance in the PAM to do
“research and analysis” in the first stage of the procurement cycle.
However, we note that the department had experience using this product and found that while
there were limitations to it, it was useful in certain situations. This is supported by technical
analysis reports completed in 2009 and 2011, which indicated some limitations with the stability
of the product and the terrain on which the flood tubes could be deployed, and offered solutions
as to how to best deploy the tubes. While this research was available in summer 2014, there is no
evidence it was considered in preparing the Treasury Board submission.
Our understanding is that the department did not conduct this research and analysis because
IRTC had already stated to the department that it wanted a specific brand of water-filled barriers
and because it was directed to prepare a submission accordingly. IRTC’s request for this specific
equipment is reflected in the documentary evidence that we reviewed. The previous chair of
IRTC indicated that IRTC wanted this specific product because Peguis First Nation (which was
the proposed location of the Emergency Operations Centre) had worked with it, had training on
the equipment, and found it could be deployed quickly and efficiently with less labour than can
be required for other types of equipment, like sand bags. He also noted that if deployed, sand
bags require disposal and this involves additional costs and labour.
We acknowledge the importance of a community determining its needs and putting forward what
it felt was the best solution for flood protection. We also recognize that the department wished to
respect IRTC’s request and not force an equipment purchase that IRTC did not support.
However, this approach must be balanced with the requirements in the PAM. We are not
satisfied that IRTC requesting specific equipment is sufficient justification for the department not
to follow the guidance in the PAM that encourages departments to provide research and analysis
regarding what goods or services should be purchased. Research and analysis would have been
particularly important given the value of the contract, that the request was for an untendered
contract, and that the submission proposed that the province own the equipment.
Recommendation 1


We recommend that in the future, MIT follow the PAM guidance and conduct or
consider relevant research and analysis in the first stage of procurement unless
sufficient rationale exists to not include it.

Capital budget
The Treasury Board Handbook indicates that when preparing a Treasury Board submission,
accounting policies should be kept in mind. It provides the following guidance for tangible
capital assets:

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 16

 For instance, tangible capital assets are amortized and departments must pick up
the annual amortization as well as interest costs related to this asset […]
Departmental financial officers should be consulted where there is uncertainty. If
there is a potential accounting issue, consult with the Provincial Comptroller’s
Office prior to submitting [the submission] so that accounting issues are
addressed up front.
The evidence demonstrated that the submission was reviewed by MIT’s ADM of finance and
administration and he indicates that he consulted the provincial comptroller’s office about
classifying the equipment as a capital asset. While the evidence does not demonstrate a common
recollection of what consultation occurred, this process follows the guidance in the Treasury
Book Handbook about how to approach a potential accounting issue.
Untendered contract
The department initially proposed to Treasury Board that the $5 million of flood-fighting
equipment be spent entirely on Standard Emergency Response Trailers equipped with Tiger
Dams and equipment needed for Tiger Dam deployment because this was the equipment IRTC
had requested. As noted previously, the evidence we reviewed shows that Peguis First Nation
had worked with this type of flood-fighting equipment in the past, they were familiar with it and
they felt this equipment was effective. MIT departmental staff we spoke with indicated that
while there was merit to the idea of having an Emergency Operations Centre for First Nation
communities in the Interlake with dedicated flood-fighting equipment, they did not believe that
purchasing only water-filled barriers was the most effective use of funds. The evidence we
reviewed indicates that the position of the MIT administration was that a variety of equipment
was needed to prepare for flooding and it felt that both the First Nation communities involved
and MIT already had a sufficient amount of water-filled barriers in their inventories. MIT staff
indicated to us that the department attempted to discuss alternative equipment options with
IRTC. Also, the view of the department’s administration was that IRTC had not provided enough
justification for why only this brand of water-filled barriers should be purchased.
The PAM indicates that the province has a duty to conduct a fair, transparent and competitive
procurement process. However, the PAM also states that it is permissible to waive a competitive
process if the purchase meets at least 1 of 4 of circumstances, which are explained in the table
below, along with examples provided in the PAM. The information in this table is reproduced
from a table in chapter 10 of the 2014 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of
Manitoba regarding the waiving of competitive bids.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 17

 Acceptable
PAM policy guideline
circumstance
Sole source

Single source

Emergency

Urgent

Only one supplier is
permitted to provide
goods or services and
an assessment verifies
that any other supplier
is precluded.

Only one supplier is
considered to meet all
the operational,
technical or
performance
requirements and that
other suppliers
providing similar goods
or services are
precluded from
supplying.
An unforeseen situation
that poses a threat to
life, health, property,
public security or order,
and the goods or
services must be
obtained as soon as
possible to mitigate the
associated risks. The
urgent nature of the
requirement does not
permit a standard
competitive bidding
process.
Only one supplier is
contacted to provide the
goods or services to
meet an immediate need
and an assessment
verifies that any other
supplier is not feasible
or practical.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Examples
*Additional examples are available in the
Procurement Administration Manual
To ensure compatibility with existing products, to
recognize exclusive rights, such as licences,
copyright and patent rights, or to maintain
specialized products that must be maintained by the
manufacturer’s representative.
Supplier has a statutory monopoly over the goods
or services to be procured.
When a standard has been established for the goods
or services and only one supplier is capable of
providing the goods or services.
When the goods must be compatible with existing
equipment and only one supplier can provide those
goods.

There is a real or imminent threat to Manitoba’s
ability to protect the life or health of people,
property, or to maintain security or order.
Emergency Measures Organization has identified
an emergency situation that requires the
procurement of goods or services.

Failure to obtain certain goods or services in a
timely manner will result in significant disruption
to the program.
Quantity of goods ordered or length of time an
interim service is arranged with a supplier must be
sufficient only to meet the immediate need. Issuing
a long term contract or ordering additional
inventory to meet future needs is not permissible.

Page 18

 As noted by the Office of the Auditor General’s 2014 report, waiving a competitive procurement
process may unnecessarily deny competing suppliers the opportunity to access government
contracts and therefore may result in the province not receiving the best value for money. We
note that the submission proposed to waive a competitive procurement process despite the fact
that on July 4, 2014, MIT purchased two Standard Emergency Response Trailers from
International Flood Control at a significantly lower price than the price per trailer that
International Flood Control provided on July 30, 2014. We were not provided with an
explanation for the price difference, nor is there any indication that, despite staff having noticed
this change in price, the department assessed reasons for the price difference prior to submitting
the request to Treasury Board.
In this case, the department’s submission proposed to waive a competitive bidding process
because it felt the sole source exception applied.
Section 13.14 of the PAM states that the rationale for permitting the waiving of competitive bids
in sole source procurement is “to accommodate the procurement of requirements where only one
supplier is permitted to provide the goods or services.” It also indicates that sole source
procurement is only permitted if an assessment verifies that any other supplier is precluded from
providing the goods or services and that a sole source procurement strategy must not be used for
the purpose of avoiding competition between suppliers or to discriminate against any supplier,
good or service. The PAM sets out acceptable circumstances when sole source procurement may
be undertaken, including “to ensure compatibility with existing products.”
Individuals we spoke with at MIT indicated that departmental staff did not agree with waiving a
competitive procurement process. However, as noted previously, the department was directed by
the minister of MIT to draft a submission that proposed an untendered contract for Tiger Dams.
The department indicates that the direction supported IRTC’s request for this equipment because
IRTC had this equipment in its inventory and had experience using it.
As noted before, we understand that the department wished to respect IRTC’s request and not
force an equipment purchase that IRTC did not support. However, this approach must be
balanced with procurement policy requirements. In this case, we did not review any evidence
that the PAM requirements for “sole source” procurement were met. For instance, there is no
evidence that the equipment proposed in the department’s submission was needed to ensure
compatibility with IRTC’s existing products or that other suppliers would be precluded from
providing water-filled barriers. As indicated above, the Treasury Board Secretariat was not
satisfied with the department’s justification for proposing sole source procurement, given that
there was more than one supplier the department has used in the past for this kind of equipment
and there was not a compelling argument in the submission for not tendering.
Recommendation 2


We recommend that MIT ensures it fully develops and considers the most appropriate
procurement strategy, including always providing justification for the selected strategy,
that consistently follows the requirements of the PAM.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 19

 We asked departmental staff involved in this procurement if they had any concerns about the
administrative process that was followed in this file, including if they had any ethical concerns.
Some individuals had very strong concerns about the direction to waive a competitive
procurement process and the justification for purchasing this quantity of one type of equipment
rather than a variety of equipment. Staff indicated that they questioned whether there was a
justification for waiving a competitive process that met the intent of the province’s procurement
policy.
We note that the province’s Values and Ethics Guide for civil servants indicates that if civil
servants question whether an action is consistent with relevant legislation, policies and
guidelines, they should seek advice before they act. The staff who indicated to us that they had
serious concerns about whether the submission followed policy had discussed their concerns
with their superiors and appropriate colleagues before taking action. As such, we are satisfied
that the Values and Ethics Guide for civil servants was followed in this regard.
Administrative improvement by the Treasury Board Secretariat
We note that as a result of the Office of the Auditor General’s 2014 report on the province’s
waiving of competitive bids, the Treasury Board Secretariat implemented an administrative
change to the process a department must follow if it wishes to provide a submission to Treasury
Board that proposes waiving a competitive procurement process. Effective October 21, 2014, a
new “Financial Overview” form must be completed and signed by the department’s executive
financial officer to accompany all Treasury Board submissions. The form includes a section on
competitive procurement that asks whether a request for the purchase of goods or services will
be competitively tendered. If the submission proposes to not tender the purchase, the form asks
whether PSB was consulted on this purchase, what recommendations PSB provided and the
outcome of the department’s consultation with PSB. The secretariat indicates that the goal of this
procedural change is to have departments discuss their rationale for not tendering with PSB to
see if there is a way to procure competitively while ensuring that departments obtain the goods
and services they need.
Individuals we consulted at PSB indicated that this procedural change has resulted in
departments frequently consulting it about procurement strategies.
In our view, this is a positive change to the Treasury Board submission process. However, while
this new process is reflected in the Financial Overview form, it is not in any written policy
guidelines.
Recommendation 3


We recommend that written policy such as the PAM include an expectation for
departments to consult PSB when they intend to provide submissions to Treasury
Board that propose waiving a competitive procurement process. This can help reinforce
the expectation that PSB be consulted in such circumstances.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 20

 There also seems to be a lack of clarity in written policy for the other circumstances in which
departments are required to consult PSB on procurement strategies.
Recommendation 4


We recommend that Manitoba Finance review the current role of PSB and develop
clear guidance to departments regarding when and under what circumstances they are
expected to consult PSB regarding their procurement strategies.

Administrative improvements by MIT
The evidence we reviewed also indicates that MIT is working on two administrative changes
related to waiving competitive procurement of goods or services.
First, department staff indicated to us that MIT is developing a pre-qualification and bid process
for equipment the province might need during a flood event. Because this process is in
development, we asked the minister of MIT for written details that we could share in this report.
He indicated the following:
This process would see the Department contact suppliers prior to flood season to
ask them for quotes, technical information and delivery time frames if the
government needed the equipment during a flood event. If we needed equipment
we would then use the provided quotes and technical assessment. This would
establish a purchasing process in advance of a flood while ensuring that the
government would continue to be able to obtain the equipment needed to protect
Manitobans.
We note that in the province’s response to this report it refers to this pre-qualification and bid
process in explaining the development of an approved products list.
MIT staff also advised us that the department is drafting a policy to clarify its procurement
process in emergency situations, which would supplement the guidance in the PAM about
waiving competitive procurement in emergencies.
While we see this as a positive step in clarifying procurement in emergency situations, this does
not appear to directly deal with proactive approaches that intend to increase the capacity of
communities to address their own needs. This is particularly relevant for initiatives that may
require partnerships with communities or other levels of government and that may require
solutions not easily developed within the current policy and funding framework (such as the
proposal for the Emergency Operations Centre discussed in this report).
Recommendation 5


We recommend that Manitoba Finance review the province’s financial policies,
procedures and guidelines to ensure they provide adequate guidance to departments
working on initiatives with external partners (i.e. communities). We also recommend

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 21

 that key principles of financial accountability be drafted and communicated to
departmental staff to assist with all stages of administrative decision making. This
communication should ensure that departmental staff are aware of areas of
government they can contact for advice in designing and implementing initiatives,
particularly those involving external partners.

3. Tendering process
On October 6, 2014, Treasury Board reviewed the submission and issued a minute approving the
spending allocation, but declining the untendered purchase and directing the department to
develop a detailed proposal with specific requirements, a plan to tender for suitable equipment
and a plan for custody, care and use of equipment. Based on the evidence we reviewed, Treasury
Board approved the $5 million spending in principle, but it did not approve a funding source
because of the outstanding issues noted above.
As a committee of cabinet, Treasury Board minutes are ratified by cabinet. When cabinet
approval has been obtained for Treasury Board's minutes, the secretary to Treasury Board
notifies departments in writing of the applicable decisions.
On October 8, 2014, the Treasury Board minute regarding the submission was held by cabinet
and MIT was directed to provide further information. The effect of cabinet holding the minute
was that there was no ratified decision on the submission and therefore Treasury Board’s
decision was effectively in abeyance.
The former clerk of the executive council indicates that on October 8, 2014, he was directed by
the premier to work with MIT and Treasury Board to ensure that proper procurement procedures
were followed. On October 9, the clerk met with the secretary to Treasury Board and the MIT
deputy minister to discuss the implementation of the premier’s direction. We were advised that at
this meeting they discussed the parameters of a fair tendering process to procure equipment for
IRTC.
On November 13, 2014, the MIT deputy minister withdrew the Treasury Board submission that
proposed an untendered contract.
After direction was given to the department to issue a tender for the purchase of equipment, MIT
contacted IRTC to involve them in the procurement process and started drafting a Request for
Proposals (RFP).
We note that the Procurement Administration Manual states that during “Requirements
Planning,” which occurs prior to the commencement of a tendering process, a department should
obtain pre-approvals such as Treasury Board approval to tender. At this point, given that the
government directed that the equipment be tendered, we were advised that it would not have
been logical to require the department to obtain separate pre-approval to tender from Treasury
Board in these circumstances. We were also advised that is not uncommon for a department to

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 22

 issue an RFP and return to Treasury Board to obtain approval for the expenditure if it is above
the department’s delegated authority.
The province issued the RFP on December 19, 2014. We note that there was a two month delay
between the direction to tender and the release of the RFP. We were told that part of the delay in
finalizing the RFP for the equipment was that it took time for IRTC and the department to come
to some agreement on it. IRTC representatives were involved in developing the RFP and
reviewing bids. The previous chair of IRTC indicated to us that IRTC did so reluctantly because
it wanted to have the autonomy to determine what equipment would be purchased.
The RFP
The evidence we reviewed showed that due to the type of flood-fighting equipment IRTC
requested, the department agreed to limit the RFP to water-filled barriers. Starting in early
November 2014, MIT worked with the Procurement Services Branch (PSB) to develop the RFP.
PSB is responsible for most central government procurement of goods and services and helps
departments navigate procurement requirements. The contract administrator, project lead, and
technical experts were identified and assigned their respective roles. In this case, PSB developed
the contractual requirements of the RFP and MIT staff were involved in developing the technical
specifications of the RFP and ensuring the equipment procured would meet the needs of IRTC.
IRTC agreed to the technical specifications in the final RFP. This is supported by evidence of
collaborative discussion between MIT and IRTC in developing the RFP.
The final RFP was for “water-filled barrier rapid deployment systems” comprised of selfcontained pull-type trailers that carry all material and equipment needed to deploy the waterfilled barriers. The RFP specified that the province was seeking two different sizes of rapidly
deployable water-filled flood barriers, totaling approximately 15,000 lineal metres. MIT and PSB
indicate that the tender quantity was set at this amount in case the cost of the winning bid was
more than they expected. MIT states that its intention was that if the cost was less than it
expected, the department would have discussions with IRTC about purchasing more equipment
in order to spend up to the $5 million it had committed.
The RFP indicated that 25 percent of the product must be delivered by March 15, 2015, and that
the remaining 75 percent must be delivered by March 31, 2015. The evidence we reviewed
confirms that this delivery timeline was chosen based on IRTC wanting the equipment in time
for potential flooding in spring 2015.
Section 15.1 of the PAM states that in exceptional circumstances, it is permissible to notify
vendors of upcoming or current tender opportunities posted to MERX, which is an electronic
tendering service. The rationale for this policy is that, if used appropriately, this notification
maximizes the competition for a tender while maintaining a fair and open procurement process.
The PAM states that it is only permissible to notify vendors of a tender opportunity in the
following circumstances:


a procurement occurs infrequently and the potential for vendors to
overlook a tender opportunity on MERX is high, such as seasonal

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 23

 contracts (ex: grass cutting contract) or the renewal of long term
contracts (ex: bi-annual contracts)


a procurement that is a repeat purchase (ex: renewal) but is delayed by
Manitoba beyond the time it could reasonably be expected to be publicly
advertised



requirements are not planned (ex: urgent, not cyclical) and vendors could
not reasonably anticipate Manitoba advertising a tender for these
requirements

In this procurement process, MIT provided PSB with a list of known suppliers of water-filled
barriers and on December 29, 2014, PSB notified all suppliers who had not already downloaded
a copy of the RFP from MERX. In this case, PSB states that it felt notices were appropriate
because of the short delivery timeline required in the RFP. We did not review any evidence that a
potential proponent was not aware of the tender opportunity.
The RFP stated that the province could amend or clarify the RFP by one or more addenda issued
before the submission deadline of January 28, 2015.
PSB issued four addenda to the RFP. The first one (dated January 6, 2015) clarified that the
water-filled barriers must be a bladder type and it amended the specifications for the trailers in
which the barriers would be transported. The second addendum (dated January 12, 2015) stated
that the price evaluation was changing from a “price per point” model to a “price comparison”
model. The evidence we reviewed is that both these addenda were issued due to direction from
MIT.
The third and fourth addenda (issued on January 16 and 21, respectively) stated questions PSB
had received from potential bidders regarding the delivery date and location and the answers
PSB had provided.
PSB states that when it issues an addendum it is posted to MERX and automatically distributed
to each proponent who downloaded the RFP and asked to receive subsequent information about
it. An addendum is also automatically included with an RFP downloaded after the addendum is
posted to MERX.
Our understanding is that it is unusual for an addendum to be issued that changes an RFP’s price
evaluation model, but we are not aware of any policy that precludes this. The evidence we
reviewed indicates that MIT felt the price comparison model was a simpler evaluation method.
We also note that no potential proponents or any individuals involved in the RFP process were
concerned about the change to the price evaluation model in this case.
Part of the RFP process is the selection of individuals to sit on the committee that evaluates the
bids. PSB’s guidance to departments is that people on the committee should have the technical
knowledge to assess the quality of bids (“subject matter experts”).

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 24

 MIT determined that half the committee should be comprised of its representatives and half the
committee should be comprised of IRTC representatives. PSB states that normally before it
undertakes procurement, it wants to know which individuals will sit on the evaluation committee
because typically the committee is consulted on the draft RFP, including the evaluation criteria.
The evidence we reviewed indicates that PSB started seeking the names of the IRTC
representatives in early January 2015, so that those individuals could sign Pledge of Conduct
forms declaring that they did not have a conflict of interest by participating in the evaluation
process, that they would maintain confidentiality, and that they would evaluate the tenders fairly.
On January 19 and 20, 2015, PSB received signed Pledge of Conduct forms from the two IRTC
representatives, who were staff from Peguis First Nation in the emergency management sector. It
also received signed Pledge of Conduct forms from the two MIT representatives.
Once proposals were received, PSB reviewed them to ensure they met the mandatory
requirements. Only the proposals that complied with the mandatory requirements were
forwarded to the committee, with pricing information removed. Each evaluator then scored the
proposals independently based on the technical requirements. PSB compiled the scores and a
group discussion was held where evaluators could share opinions and change their scores on the
technical considerations if they wished, and then the average of the scores was taken to arrive at
a final score of the technical aspects of the RFP. The committee then reviewed the pricing
information of each proposal and PSB calculated a price score for each proposal. Seventy percent
of the final score of each proposal was based on technical requirements and thirty percent on
price, and the recommended supplier was the one that received the highest score overall.
Although the evaluation committee had selected a recommended supplier, MIT could not award
the contract until Treasury Board approved doing so, given that the amount of the contract would
exceed MIT’s delegated spending authority.
Analysis
PSB states that typically members of the evaluation committee are consulted on the draft RFP,
which includes the evaluation criteria. PSB also indicates that it ensures that every member of
the evaluation committee signs a Pledge of Conduct form prior to the evaluation of bids. The
form includes a declaration that the committee member will ensure that he or she has no conflict
of interest or perceived conflict of interest relating to any proponent.
As indicated above, IRTC representatives were involved in developing the RFP. PSB indicates
that it is not common to have individuals outside the provincial government involved in
developing an RFP and evaluating bids, but it does happen. For example, there might be federal
government representatives on an evaluation committee for a joint provincial-federal
procurement. MIT staff we spoke with indicated that in this case, the department felt it was
appropriate to have IRTC representation on the evaluation committee.
The evidence indicates that a consultant hired by IRTC was involved in developing the RFP and
the evaluation criteria despite later declining to sit on the evaluation committee because he could
not sign the Pledge of Conduct form due to a conflict of interest relating to a potential proponent.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 25

 PSB states that this IRTC representative was involved because PSB had not yet confirmed which
IRTC representatives would be sitting on the RFP evaluation committee.
The evidence we reviewed confirms that various suppliers of water-filled barriers were eligible
to bid on the RFP. We have not reviewed evidence that the input of the IRTC consultant resulted
in the RFP being unfair or biased in favour of one proponent. However, this raises an overall
concern that in cases like this, there is a risk of perceived or actual unfairness if individuals are
involved in developing an RFP who have an undeclared conflict of interest relating to a potential
proponent.
PSB has recently developed tendering guidelines that reflect its procurement practices and
principles in order to assist departments and agencies with basic tendering procedures. These
guidelines were not yet in place when PSB was involved in this procurement, but PSB indicates
that the guidelines reflect the practices and principles that PSB was following at that time.
These guidelines indicate that a Pledge of Conduct form must be signed by each RFP team
member, and that the RFP team is comprised of the contract administrator, the project lead and
subject matter experts who may be consulted on the RFP and form part or all of the evaluation
committee. One of the obligations on the form is that the person signing the form has “no
conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest relating to any Proponent” and that if the
person discovers a conflict, he or she “will promptly advise the other members of the RFP
Team”, including the PSB consultant assisting with the procurement. The guidelines do not
specify if the form must be signed before someone becomes involved in developing the RFP.
We reviewed evidence that the four members of the evaluation committee signed Pledge of
Conduct forms prior to reviewing bids, but we were not provided evidence that any other
individuals on the RFP team had signed the form.
Recommendation 6


We recommend that PSB clarify its written guidelines for which individuals involved in
the RFP development and/or bid evaluation process must sign the Pledge of Conduct
form. We further recommend that clear guidelines be provided to RFP team members
about how and when to declare a conflict of interest, including a conflict involving a
potential proponent.
In our view, individuals should sign the form before becoming involved at any point in
the RFP process so they are aware of their obligations at that time.

We recognize that PSB is not always involved when departments develop the technical
requirements for an RFP. Therefore:
Recommendation 7


We recommend that PSB share these guidelines with departments to assist them in
preventing undeclared conflicts of interest at this stage of the RFP process.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 26

 Lastly, while some aspects of the tendering process were unusual (such as the composition of the
evaluation committee and the addendum that changed the price evaluation model), other than the
issue related to the involvement of the IRTC consultant, we are satisfied that legislation and
policy were followed during the development of the RFP, the release of the RFP and subsequent
addenda, and the evaluation of bids. As mentioned above, PSB has developed tendering
guidelines as well as RFP templates that reflect PSB’s procurement practices and principles to
assist staff of departments and agencies with basic tendering procedures. Given that written
procedures contribute to a more transparent and consistent process, in our view this is a positive
administrative improvement to PSB’s communication with civil servants regarding the
province’s procurement procedures.

4. Building Manitoba Fund
In November 2014, MIT began discussions with Manitoba Municipal Government about the
possibility of proposing to Treasury Board that the Building Manitoba Fund (BMF) be the
funding source for the equipment.
The BMF provides funding support to address municipal infrastructure maintenance and capital
asset renewal needs, including streets and bridges, water and sewer systems, bike paths,
recreation and other municipal facilities, and public transit. The authority for the fund arises from
The Municipal Taxation and Funding Act, which indicates that the BMF can be a source of
grants to municipalities and First Nation reserves and sets out a formula for the portion of
provincial tax revenue that is credited to the BMF each year.
Given that the BMF is a source of grants to municipalities and First Nations, using this funding
source would result in IRTC owning the equipment. We were advised that MIT staff supported
this because it would not require a potentially complex negotiated agreement with IRTC
regarding the care and custody of provincially-owned equipment. A BMF grant could still result
in the province issuing a tender for the purchase of the flood-fighting equipment, but IRTC
would have sole ownership and responsibility for the equipment, including insurance,
maintenance, and storage. In contrast, the implication of using the capital budget to purchase the
equipment is that the province would own the equipment and require an agreement with IRTC
regarding the care and custody of the equipment, which would be stored at the IRTC Emergency
Operations Centre.
Manitoba Municipal Government was concerned that using the BMF to purchase this equipment
would be inconsistent with government policy on how the fund had been used in the past.
Previously the BMF had been used for permanent infrastructure, such as establishing permanent
dikes around communities. It had not previously been used to fund flood mitigation equipment
used on a temporary basis, such as water-filled barriers.
Although using the BMF to fund this equipment would be a new use of the fund that could result
in a change to the government’s policy on the scope of what can be funded with the BMF, the
departments were of the view that the BMF legislation did not prevent using the fund in this
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 27

 manner. However, both departments acknowledged that since this change in use would mean a
change in policy direction, it would need to be endorsed by government.
Analysis
The evidence we reviewed indicated that from November 2014 to February 2015, MIT and
Manitoba Municipal Government were in discussions about developing a Treasury Board
submission that would include BMF as a possible funding source for the equipment. While MIT
preferred that BMF be the chosen funding source, the view of Manitoba Municipal Government
was that the alternative to using BMF (which was MIT’s capital budget) was preferable to
potentially expanding BMF. The evidence we reviewed confirms that regardless of the funding
source, the equipment to be purchased would be chosen from a competitive tendering process
and the expenditure would require Treasury Board approval. As such, there is no evidence that
MIT pursued BMF as a funding source in order to avoid a competitive procurement process or
circumvent the Treasury Board approval process.

5. Current status of the file
We were advised that work on determining a funding source is currently in abeyance because
IRTC announced its purchase of 20 Tiger Dam Standard Emergency Response Trailers in late
March 2015 with funding from the federal government. The previous chair of IRTC indicates
that the federal government contribution would be in addition to, not replace, the commitment
the provincial government had made to purchase equipment for the Interlake Emergency
Operations Centre.
Given that IRTC had procured these flood tubes, in mid-May, 2015, the province and IRTC
began new discussions about how to spend the provincial commitment of $5 million for floodfighting equipment. At present, these discussions with IRTC are ongoing.
The evidence we reviewed confirms that the province remains committed to the $5 million of
funding for flood fighting. The current deputy minister states that when MIT decides what it
wishes to fund with the $5 million commitment, it will return to Treasury Board to obtain
approval.
The department has not cancelled the tender it issued in December 2014. We were advised that
decisions regarding the RFP are pending the outcome of discussions between the province and
IRTC.
Analysis
Section 17.1 of the PAM states that the province has a fiduciary duty and responsibility to award
a contract to the winning bidder. PSB states that while contracts should be awarded to the
winning bidder, there are circumstances in which no contract is awarded following a tendering
process. PSB provided us information stating that the courts have held that if a purchaser
includes a provision in its tender documents that allows it to bypass the winning bidder or cancel
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 28

 the tender process, this can take precedence over the duty to award a contract to the winning
bidder.
The province’s RFP for the purchase of water-filled barriers for IRTC stated that “Manitoba may
cancel this RFP at any time, with no liability whatsoever to any proponent” and that “Manitoba
is under no obligation to accept any Proposal or to select the Proposal offering the lowest price
for the Services.” The RFP also stated that the province’s acceptance of a bid was conditional on
“Manitoba obtaining all necessary internal approvals” and that the province “has no obligation to
enter into the agreement unless this condition has been met.”
Given the above, we did not review any evidence demonstrating that the absence of a contract
award for this RFP is inconsistent with legislation or policy.

CONCLUSION
The goal of this report is to articulate the processes involved in the commitment and procurement
of flood-fighting equipment for the Interlake Emergency Operations Centre. The observations,
findings and recommendations in this investigation report are intended to help strengthen
existing processes and support better accountability, transparency and decision making. We do
not judge the appropriateness of the Emergency Operations Centre initiative or a specific flood
protection product. This report should not be viewed as an obstacle to moving forward on
supporting First Nations flood mitigation.
In undertaking this review, it became evident that flood fighting in Manitoba is a complex effort
requiring many players and technical expertise, not only in flood forecasting, but in all types of
efforts for prevention, mitigation and assistance before, during and after a flood event. Major
floods in Manitoba, particularly in 2009, 2011 and 2014 have put a lot of pressure on individual
communities as well as the province. Adding to this complexity are the intergovernmental
relationships that are required between the province, federal government and First Nations in
terms of flood prevention, evacuation and compensation. We were advised throughout this
investigation that the province has a commitment to, over time, increase the capacity of First
Nation communities to directly assist in flood-fighting efforts in their communities. The
evidence we have reviewed indicates that this is something that is also being sought by First
Nation organizations and that discussions to date involved both the provincial and federal levels
of government.
While we recognize that government needs to be responsive to communities and innovative in its
approaches, established procedures and policies still need to be followed. In this investigation,
while we found that the overall process of seeking Treasury Board approval was undertaken and
an RFP was eventually issued, we identified some issues with the administrative steps taken in
this matter and we observed that the process from commitment to procurement did not follow a
typical path. We found several points in this process where differences of opinion and
expectation were present. In our view this contributed to the department’s inability to provide a
solid justification for its initial proposal and has added to the delay in implementing this
initiative.
Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 29

 Through the course of evidence gathering we saw broad support for the concept of building
flood-fighting capacity in First Nation communities. However, we also heard concern from
several senior public servants regarding the direction to purchase only one type of flood-fighting
equipment (Tiger Dams) for IRTC. Some public servants believed that the $5 million would
have been better spent on a range of equipment. Concerns about the source of the required
funding were also raised.
This case also highlighted the role of political decision making in the funding and procurement
process and revealed some tensions between the political direction that was set and the
administrative actions required to carry out that direction. In this case, direction was given to
civil service staff to seek approval to waive a competitive tendering process for the procurement
of Tiger Dams despite concerns, including that doing so was inconsistent with the government’s
procurement policy. The evidence indicated that the political level of government did not just set
the policy direction in this case, but also initially directed the manner in which the procurement
of flood-fighting equipment should occur (i.e. an untendered contract). This could be viewed as
an overlap between the political and administrative levels of government.
We must recognize, however, the right and responsibility that elected officials have in making
commitments and setting direction. Civil servants are responsible for providing expert advice
where possible to support sound decision making, and for implementing the commitments and
direction established by elected officials.
It is worth noting that in response to a recommendation in the December 2013 Manitoba
Ombudsman report (referenced at the beginning of this report), the province developed a
document titled “Guidelines for elected officials and political staff on ensuring a non-partisan
civil service”, dated October 2015. The document provides some relevant information regarding
the roles of elected officials, political staff and civil servants. For the purposes of this
investigation, those distinctions are meaningful as they also speak to the importance of
considering public perception in decision making and provide several considerations in assessing
whether direction to the civil service is appropriate. We have been advised that this document
has been distributed to cabinet, political staff and senior civil servants and we encourage the
province to continue to communicate this information at all levels.
This case highlights that public perception matters when carrying out the duties of government,
and that the actions of elected officials and civil servants can reflect on each other when either
are called into question. Concerns about poor administrative practices at any level can erode the
public’s confidence in government as a whole.
Ultimately, this case is a cautionary tale; a reminder that the civil service and elected officials
need to work together for the common goal of providing fair, accountable service to the public.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 30

 RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
The province provided our office with the following responses to the recommendations in this
report. The province advises that prior to the start of this investigation it had begun a series of
changes to the manner in which it records, monitors and reports government contracts and that it
recently implemented many of these changes. The province states that while many of the
changes are outside the scope of this investigation, they have a direct bearing on our
recommendations. As such, the province’s response includes details about action it has taken to
address some of the concerns we have raised.
We note that some of the applicable changes the province has implemented are also mentioned in
the Office of the Auditor General’s follow-up on its 2014 report on the province’s waiving of
competitive bids, which was released in December 2015 on the auditor general’s website.
Recommendation 1


We recommend that in the future, MIT follow the PAM guidance and conduct or
consider relevant research and analysis in the first stage of procurement unless
sufficient rationale exists to not include it.
Response: Agree. MIT has strong procurement practices in place consistent with the
Procurement Administration Manual (PAM), however, processes will be reviewed to
ensure that appropriate research and analysis is undertaken and documented to confirm
compliance with this requirement.
The principle of fair market value appears throughout the PAM and is woven into almost
every procurement process including untendered contracts. We recognize the benefit of
providing further guidance in the area of value analysis and are developing guidance
information to assist all departments in analyzing fair market value on contracts that are
not subject to a competitive procurement process. The information will include analysis
methodology and research tools that can be used in the determination of fair market value
for many common goods or services purchased by government. In instances where a
more complex analysis is required, the PAM will recommend consultation with PSB.
It should also be noted that MIT has already begun the development of an Approved
Products List (APL) for various categories of Temporary Flood Protection products,
including for water-filled barriers. The intention of the APL is to identify products that
meet pre-established technical specifications and other field performance criteria. When a
product need has been identified during an emergency, vendors with “Approved
Products” may be contacted during emergent circumstances to provide price and delivery
information for evaluation with delivery by a certain date considered a mandatory
criterion. MIT already has APLs for a number of technical products in a variety of
product categories such as asphalt, cement, and dust control products.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 31

 Recommendation 2


We recommend that MIT ensures it fully develops and considers the most appropriate
procurement strategy, including always providing justification for the selected strategy,
that consistently follows the requirements of the PAM.
Response: Agree. All departments – including MIT – are required to document
information which demonstrates adherence to the requirements of the PAM.
In May 2015, government introduced a requirement for all contracts greater than $1,000
to be entered into SAP (the government’s enterprise resource management system); this
ensures that all critical information is captured at time of contract creation. All contracts
now require the mandatory inclusion of key data elements such as the sourcing method
used (Tendered, Direct Award, Sole Source, Emergency, and Continuing Service
Agreement), the rationale for the sourcing method, and the full history leading up to the
decision (i.e. the Business Case). These process improvements provide critical
information for the Record of Procurement and support the effective review and approval
of high risk procurements. All such procurements are monitored and reviewed on a
monthly basis.

Recommendation 3


We recommend that written policy such as the PAM include an expectation for
departments to consult PSB when they intend to provide submissions to Treasury
Board that propose waiving a competitive procurement process. This can help reinforce
the expectation that PSB be consulted in such circumstances.
Response: Agree. Steps have already been undertaken to address this recommendation.
Treasury Board Secretariat implemented a change to its Financial Overview Form which
accompanies all Treasury Board submissions made by departments. Effective October
21st, 2014, the Financial Overview Form includes a requirement for consultation with
Procurement Services Branch (PSB) when the intention is to award a contract without a
competitive bidding process. This establishes a further control mechanism to ensure
departments are consulting with PSB on all contracts that exceed their delegated authority
and provides Treasury Board with additional information in evaluating these requests.
In addition, effective December 21st, 2015, a new procedure was introduced to validate
contracts that are deemed “sole source.” When it is asserted that only one provider is able
to provide a specific good or service that is valued at $10,000 or greater, departments will
be required to consult with PSB prior to awarding a sole source contract. In some
instances, departments may be required to issue a “Notice of Intent” on MERX to
validate that no other vendor is able to provide the good or service. This is a mandatory
process and changes to the PAM will be implemented to reflect this.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 32

 Recommendation 4


We recommend that Manitoba Finance review the current role of PSB and develop
clear guidance to departments regarding when and under what circumstances they are
expected to consult PSB regarding their procurement strategies.
Response: Agree. Departments have been reminded that a competitive process (i.e.
tender) should be used for any goods or services being procured on behalf of government.
If there is any question about the application of procurement policies, the PSB is the
authority on procurement processes within government and should be consulted in
advance of any decision to waive a competitive process. As previously communicated,
the PAM outlines circumstances when it may be appropriate to waive competitive
bidding.

Recommendation 5


We recommend that Manitoba Finance review the province’s financial policies,
procedures and guidelines to ensure they provide adequate guidance to departments
working on initiatives with external partners (i.e. communities). We also recommend
that key principles of financial accountability be drafted and communicated to
departmental staff to assist with all stages of administrative decision making. This
communication should ensure that departmental staff are aware of areas of
government they can contact for advice in designing and implementing initiatives,
particularly those involving external partners.
Response: Agree. We concur on the imperative to maintain strong financial
accountability and transparency in the use of funds, and that this must be supported by
clear guidance that is communicated consistently across government.
While we believe the current suite of financial policies, procedures and guidelines can be
effectively applied to initiatives involving community partners, we will review these to
ensure they are clearly articulated and updated, where necessary, in light of this
recommendation.
With respect to communication, we note that significant communications to and within
departments regarding their financial accountabilities already takes place on a regular and
ongoing basis. This has been augmented by the development of additional training
materials developed by the Provincial Comptroller which will be launched early in 2016.
Furthermore, we will take additional measures to bolster communications with staff so
they may be better aware of the resources and contacts that are available to them in
fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 33

 Recommendation 6


We recommend that PSB clarify its written guidelines for which individuals involved in
the RFP development and/or bid evaluation process must sign the Pledge of Conduct
form. We further recommend that clear guidelines be provided to RFP team members
about how and when to declare a conflict of interest, including a conflict involving a
potential proponent.
In our view, individuals should sign the form before becoming involved at any point in
the RFP process so they are aware of their obligations at that time.
Response: Agree. It should be noted that the province has a conflict of interest policy in
place and civil servants are required to declare potential conflicts. The Civil Service
Commission and the PSB will review this further to ensure it is adequate and/or updated
to address the concerns noted here. Furthermore, PSB has developed and included further
direction in the Request for Proposal guidelines regarding a required Pledge of Conduct
form for individuals involved in the preparation and evaluation of RFPs. The instructions
and content of the Pledge of Conduct form will be reviewed to determine if further
changes are required in light of this recommendation.

Recommendation 7


We recommend that PSB share these guidelines with departments to assist them in
preventing undeclared conflicts of interest at this stage of the RFP process.
Response: Agree. Information to this effect will be prepared and circulated.

Manitoba Ombudsman Report

Page 34

 Appendix: Timeline of key dates

 

 

July 18. 2014
Mn" minister commits $5 milion of equipment to IRTC.

 

July 25. 2014
Province announcesdixussions for EOC for First Naion
Interlake communitis

 

 

 

 

 

August 5. 2014
IRE province an 'nvoice for 33 Tiger Dam tra?lersat acost of $5 milion

 

 

 

 

September 2. 2014
IT minister disussconcerns about the invoice with IRTC.

 

September 17. 2014
Treasury Board Secretariat rece'us MiT?ssubmission for an
untendered contract for Tiger Dams

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 6. 2014
Treasury Board aprovsfundire in princ'ple and declines
untendered purchase October 8' 2014
Cabinet Boardeec'sion. Premier directs clerk of
mob" 9' 2014 the eiecutivecouncilto mane proper procedua are followed.
Clerk of the atecut'uecouncil, secretary to Treasury Boa'd aid 
deputy m'n'ster discussatenderire process

 

 

 

 

 

November 13. 2014
MIT withdraws ts subm'ssion that proposed an untendered contract.

 

 

 


Deoenber 19. 2014
Province issua RFP for water-filed barriers with a
closirg date of Janua'y 28, 2015.

 

 

2015 2015

 

March 2015
IRTC announce purchase of 20 Tiger Dam tr a'lersw ith
fund 'ng from thefederal government.

 

 

May 2015
Province and IRTC renew discussions about
spend'ng the $5 milion commitment.

 

 

 

Ab? . . Deoenber 2015

mu?? yetawa'ded for theRFP. Decisions a'e pendirethe
MIT - Manitoba Infrastructure . . .

. outcome of ongorre discussonsw th IRTC.

and Transportaion
IRTC lnterlake RservesTribalCounci
EOC Emergency 
RFP Raqustfor Proposls

 

 


Manitoba Ombudsman Report Page 35