Complexity Level 1

You won't find "Complexity Level 1" explicitly defined in the Government of Canada's Supply Manual, despite its occasional use in procurement conversations. The term typically describes the simplest procurement scenarios—think call-ups against standing offers or buying commercially available items without elaborate evaluation criteria. But here's the thing: it's more practitioner shorthand than official classification.

How It Works

When procurement officers talk about complexity levels informally, they're usually distinguishing between straightforward purchases and more demanding contracts. The closest you'll get to official recognition is in the General Conditions framework, where Justice Canada distinguishes between standard and "higher complexity" goods procurements. That higher complexity designation covers situations involving specialized terms like Work, Contract Cost Principles, or Government Property. Everything else? Presumably simpler.

PSPC's assessor guidance for bid solicitation preparation does reference "Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3," but these relate to skill levels (Junior, Intermediate, Senior) for evaluating professional services under the Contract Period and Services Standards Policy Suite. Not procurement complexity per se. In practice, what people mean by Complexity Level 1 varies wildly by department. Some organizations use internal risk assessment frameworks with complexity scales from 1 to 5, where Level 1 might trigger minimal oversight and approval requirements. SSC, for instance, has faced scrutiny from the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman regarding how evaluation criteria align with procurement complexity—a reminder that even simple classifications can have real consequences.

The absence of standardized complexity definitions across government means you need to understand your department's specific approach. A Level 1 procurement at one organization might require completely different documentation or approval authority than at another. Treasury Board policies address risk-based procurement more broadly, but they don't prescribe a universal complexity classification system that all departments must follow.

Key Considerations

• Don't assume everyone means the same thing—verify how your specific department or agency defines complexity levels before citing them in justifications or planning documents

• Even "simple" procurements require adherence to fundamental trade agreement obligations and fairness principles; low complexity doesn't mean low diligence

• If you're creating internal processes that reference complexity levels, document your criteria clearly so approvers and auditors understand your classification rationale

• Watch for informal complexity classifications creeping into formal documents without proper definition—OPO reviews have flagged inconsistencies between stated evaluation approaches and actual practice

Related Terms

Complexity Level 2, Standing Offer, Evaluation Criteria

Sources

• Supply Manual - Canada Buys

• General Conditions - Higher Complexity - Goods - Part I

• Bid Solicitation Preparation—Assessor Guidance Document

If your organization uses complexity classifications for workflow or approval routing, make sure they're formally documented in your departmental procurement framework. Informal systems work fine until someone asks for the policy reference.