Credible evidence

When you're making decisions about supplier exclusion, contract termination, or enforcement actions in federal procurement, you need more than hunches or hearsay. You need credible evidence—information that's reliable, verifiable, and stands up to scrutiny. The Canada.ca guidance on task-based supply arrangements is explicit: determinations must be "grounded in credible evidence from a reliable source."

How It Works

What counts as credible evidence? It depends on context. The Supply Manual (2005 Edition) discusses evidence of insurance that contracting officers determine necessary after considering procurement risks. That's straightforward: you need documentation from an insurer, not just the supplier's word.

The evidentiary bar gets higher when you're dealing with supplier performance issues or exclusions. Under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement Chapter Five, you can exclude a supplier for reasons like bankruptcy, insolvency, or false declarations—but only "if there is supporting evidence." This means documented proof, not informal complaints or unverified claims. If you're excluding a bidder or terminating a contract, that evidence needs to withstand potential legal challenge.

The Office of the Procurement Ombud's 2022 review of DND highlighted what happens when evidence standards slip. In that review, mandatory evaluation criteria needed to be "clearly stated, demonstrable and measurable." When criteria weren't properly documented or objectively verifiable, bid disqualifications became problematic. The same principle applies throughout contract management: your decisions need a documentary trail that demonstrates reasonableness and fairness.

Key Considerations

• Source reliability matters as much as content. Third-party audits, official financial statements, or court documents carry more weight than email exchanges or verbal representations. PSPC and other departments routinely conduct supplier audits, which is why suppliers must retain records for six years after final payment.

• Document everything as it happens. Evidence loses credibility when it's assembled after the fact to justify a decision already made. If a supplier's performance is deteriorating, document specific instances with dates, impacts, and communications as they occur.

• Hearsay and rumour don't cut it. You can't exclude a supplier based on another department's informal complaints. You need documented performance issues, corrective action plans, and evidence the supplier failed to remedy deficiencies.

• The standard isn't "beyond reasonable doubt." You're not prosecuting a crime. But you do need enough reliable information that a reasonable person in your position would reach the same conclusion. Treasury Board Contracting Policy and Supply Manual Chapter 11 on contract management set the framework for these evidentiary determinations.

Related Terms

Contract Performance, Compliance Verification, Supplier Integrity, Bid Evaluation

Sources

• Task-based supply arrangement - Canada.ca

• Supply Manual - 2005 Edition

• Canadian Free Trade Agreement - Chapter Five: Government Procurement

The bottom line? Build your case with documentation that would satisfy a skeptical auditor or review board. When you can point to specific, verifiable information from reliable sources, your procurement decisions become defensible.