Non-competitive contracting process

When you're tracking federal contracts, you'll notice a significant portion awarded without any competitive bid process. This happens through non-competitive contracting—a procurement approach where departments award contracts directly to suppliers without soliciting multiple bids. Competition remains the baseline expectation under Treasury Board policy, but there are four specific exceptions that permit this approach when properly justified.

How It Works

The Government Contracts Regulations Section 6 sets out exactly when contracting authorities can skip the competitive process. First, there's pressing emergency—situations where delay would be injurious to the public interest. Second, low-dollar contracts where the estimated expenditure doesn't exceed $25,000 for goods or $100,000 for services and construction. Third, cases where it's determined not in the public interest to solicit bids. And fourth, sole-source situations where only one person or firm is capable of performing the work.

These aren't casual exemptions. Supply Manual Chapter 3.2 makes clear that any use of non-competitive methods requires full justification documented on the contract file. In practice, you'll see the threshold exception used most frequently—departments can procure goods or services below those dollar limits without going through a competitive process, though some have higher delegated authorities for specific categories. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, for instance, can go up to $40,000 for livestock and feed purchases.

The sole-source exception generates the most scrutiny, and for good reason. When a department claims only one supplier can meet their requirements, they need to demonstrate why—whether due to patents, specialized expertise, compatibility with existing systems, or other valid technical reasons. The Procurement Ombudsman has conducted multiple reviews of non-competitive contracting practices, including high-profile cases, emphasizing that justifications must be thorough and recorded properly. You can't simply prefer a vendor; you need demonstrable reasons why competition isn't feasible.

Key Considerations

• Documentation is mandatory, not optional. Treasury Board Contracting Policy Section 10.2.6 requires full justification on file. If auditors or the Procurement Ombudsman review the contract later, weak documentation won't hold up.

• Threshold amounts haven't changed with inflation. That $25,000 limit for goods has remained static, which means relatively fewer contracts qualify for this exception over time as prices increase.

• Emergency provisions exist for genuine crises. "Pressing emergency" doesn't mean poor planning or missed deadlines—it refers to unforeseen situations where delay would harm the public interest. Think natural disasters or critical infrastructure failures, not routine procurement delays.

• Public interest exceptions require serious justification. This is the most discretionary category, used when soliciting bids wouldn't serve Canadians well—but it demands careful reasoning that aligns with procurement framework principles of transparency and value for money.

Related Terms

Sole Source Contract, Advance Contract Award Notice, Government Contracts Regulations

Sources

• Supply Manual Chapter 3.2 - Non-Competitive Procurement Methods

• Government Contracts Regulations (SOR/2018-184)

• Procurement Ombudsman: Review of Non-Competitive Contracting

When analyzing procurement data, remember that non-competitive awards aren't inherently problematic—they're a legitimate tool when used within the regulatory framework. The question is always whether the exception applies and whether the justification holds up to scrutiny.