Tribunal Rules for Resolution Alliance Complaint
Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 159, Number 35: COMMISSIONS
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal found on 2025-08-12 that a complaint by Resolution Alliance Inc. about the scoring of proposals under solicitation 100028281 was valid. The procurement was for facilitation of virtual training for Employment and Social Development Canada call centre employees; the Tribunal reviewed the matter under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. The notice does not state whether a specific remedy was ordered.
- Published
- August 30, 2025
- Department
- Unavailable
- Section
- CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
- Comment deadline
- Unavailable
- Effective date
- Unavailable
- Publication part
- Part I
Summary
Summary#
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal completed an inquiry and, on August 12, 2025, found a complaint by Resolution Alliance Inc. to be valid. The complaint challenged how the Department of Employment and Social Development scored proposals in procurement 100028281 for facilitation of virtual training for ESDC call centre staff.
What it does#
- Describes the Tribunal’s decision that the complaint about the evaluation of proposals under solicitation 100028281 had merit.
- Says the complaint alleged that ESDC gave higher points to other proposals for the same kind of past experience while scoring Resolution Alliance Inc. lower under a point-rated technical criterion.
- Notes the complaint was filed under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act and that the Tribunal conducted an inquiry before making its determination.
- For more details, the Tribunal’s Registry can be contacted at 613‑993‑3595 or citt-tcce@tribunal.gc.ca.
Who's affected#
- Resolution Alliance Inc., the company that filed the complaint.
- Department of Employment and Social Development, the department whose procurement process was challenged.
- Other businesses that bid, or plan to bid, on federal contracts for training or facilitation services may notice the outcome.
- It is not clear from the notice whether a specific remedy (such as re-scoring, cancelling the contract, or re-tendering) was ordered.
Why it matters#
- The decision signals that federal procurement evaluations can be questioned and, if found unfair, the Tribunal can rule in favour of the bidder.
- For companies that compete for government contracts, this affects confidence that evaluations must be consistent and justified.
- For the public, it matters because fair procurement helps ensure value for money and trust in how taxpayer-funded contracts are awarded.
Key topics
Source: Canada Gazette