The Shotgun Blog
« Paranoid, delusional, agenda-driven website scoops with world exclusive video | Main | Queer eye for the straight "refugee" »
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Adscam
TOP STORY—CONTRACT TO ADVISE MARTIN LOOKS TAILORED TO ONE FIRM: EARNSCLIFFE GOT $214,000 DEAL. FORMER HEAD OF SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM TESTIFIES CRITERIA FOR TENDER WERE SKEWED
A week after Alan Allnutt’s return, the Montréal Gazette breaks its first Adscam story, and makes Andrew Coyne and Jim Travers look very good today.
Elizabeth Thomson reports: The government's criteria for a controversial contract to provide strategic communications advice to Paul Martin's Finance Department was very exacting and detailed, spelling out a combination of conditions that would have excluded many firms, according to documents obtained by The Gazette.
The "request for proposals" for the lucrative contract, awarded to Earnscliffe Strategy Group in 1994, was to advise then-finance minister Martin's staff and his department on their ambitious plan to "open up" the budget preparation process.
The senior consultant called for in the detailed contract had to be available on a regular basis and often on short notice "to analyze and assess sudden developments bearing on the financial and economic environment."
The $214,000 contract, awarded in December 1994, ran till Aug. 31, 1995, with options to renew it for two additional 12-month periods.
However, companies couldn't even be considered for the contract unless they met minimum requirements set by the government - requirements that were spelled out in detail.
For example, the senior consultant had to have completed a minimum of three previous projects "for the provision of strategic communication/policy advice to government similar in scope, sensitivity and complexity."
The firm itself had to have completed three previous major projects that "must have included the provision of effective advice on the state of the public environment and on economic and financial issues and their communications implications."
The senior consultant had to have a minimum of five years' experience working in the media, "especially in broadcasting and journalism with emphasis on public policy issues," as well as "up to date knowledge of computer-based communications media, including interactive communications technologies" and have completed two projects in that area.
The request for proposals documents tend to support allegations made by former sponsorship program head Charles Guité, who testified under oath before the parliamentary committee probing the sponsorship scandal yesterday that the contract didn't go through the normal contracting procedure and the criteria were designed to favour a particular firm.
In fact, Guité said the criteria were so skewed that, while 17 firms requested the tender documents, only one - Earnscliffe - actually bid for the contract.
"If you put out a tender, and the scope of work would have been prepared by the department, not by my group, and you have one bidder replying, I think that the rest of the industry out there got the message, 'We know where it's going to go, so let's not waste our time bidding.’ "
One industry veteran who traded anonymity for candour, said yesterday it was apparent the request for proposals was tailored to a particular firm.
Posted by Norman Spector on April 24, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350443b753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Adscam:
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.