Rejection Review

Here's the thing: while "Rejection Review" sounds like an official procurement term, you won't find it as a formal process in the Government of Canada Supply Manual. What you're really dealing with is a collection of oversight mechanisms—bid evaluation documentation requirements, supplier debriefings, and internal review processes—that together ensure rejected suppliers get fair treatment and procurement decisions can withstand scrutiny.

How It Works

When a supplier's bid gets rejected, the evaluation team must document their reasoning thoroughly. Sub-section 5.105 of the PSPC Supply Manual requires comprehensive evaluation reports that detail why each bidder was accepted or rejected. This isn't just paperwork for its own sake. These reports need to demonstrate compliance with Treasury Board Contracting Policy requirements (specifically sub-sections 10.7.27 and 12.3.1), and they're the foundation for any subsequent review or challenge.

In practice, if a rejected supplier wants their case reconsidered, they typically start with a debriefing. PSPC's debriefing policy, outlined in the Supply Manual, requires procurement officials to explain rejection reasons and identify which competitors were also rejected. What happens after that debriefing? It varies by department. Global Affairs Canada, for example, operates an Internal Review Mechanism (IRM) specifically designed as "a post-debriefing process before going through external challenge processes." This gives suppliers one more shot at internal recourse before escalating to external bodies.

If internal avenues don't resolve the issue, suppliers can file a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT)—but they need to move fast. You've got just 10 working days after you become aware of the basis for complaint, or after being denied internal relief. For smaller procurements (under $25,000 for goods or $100,000 for services), the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman handles reviews instead.

Key Considerations

• Documentation is everything. Without a solid evaluation report on file, your rejection decision becomes vulnerable to successful challenges. The evaluation must show clear alignment between your rejection rationale and the pre-established criteria.

• No standardized "Rejection Review" exists across government. Each department may handle post-rejection reviews differently. Some have formal internal mechanisms like Global Affairs Canada's IRM, while others rely solely on the standard debriefing process and external recourse options.

• Timing matters for complainants. The 10-working-day window to file with CITT catches many suppliers off guard. The clock starts ticking from when they knew or should have known the basis for complaint—not from when they decide to act.

• Higher-level review doesn't always mean overturning. When a rejection gets escalated internally, the reviewing authority examines whether proper procedures were followed and criteria applied consistently. They're checking process integrity, not necessarily second-guessing technical judgment calls.

Related Terms

Fairness, Openness, and Transparency, Debriefing, Standing Offer

Sources

• Government of Canada Supply Manual, Chapter 5 and sub-section 5.105

• Information Note on Recourse Mechanisms for Contracting - Global Affairs Canada

• Supplier Debriefings - Procurement Practices Review - Office of the Procurement Ombudsman

Bottom line: protect your procurement decisions by documenting evaluation thoroughly and understanding the review mechanisms available both internally and externally. The best rejection review is the one that never needs to happen because your evaluation file speaks for itself.