Sarnia police board votes to disclose competing bids on major capital projects

Sarnia’s police board has approved a motion to disclose competing bids, prices and evaluation scores for major capital projects. Councillor Chrissy McRoberts pushed for greater transparency, while Acting Chief Mike Federico raised questions about commercial confidentiality.

The Sarnia Police Service Board has voted to make more information about major contracting decisions available to the public, following questions from councillor Chrissy McRoberts about how companies are selected for projects funded by taxpayers.

At its October 22 meeting, the board approved a motion calling for the names of the three leading bidders, their quoted prices and evaluation scores to be included in board agenda packages for major capital projects requiring requests for proposals (RFPs). Where fewer than three bids are received, only those available would be reported.

The motion followed a discussion about the police service’s procurement practices during an update on capital projects. McRoberts questioned how contractors are selected and whether the public receives enough information to understand those decisions.

“How do we follow the process?” McRoberts asked, questioning whether contractors were being selected through competitive tenders or other purchasing arrangements.

Police officials explained that the service operates under established procurement policies, with different requirements depending on the value and nature of a contract. Deputy Chief Michael Van Sickle said he had been working with city procurement staff to better understand the requirements for issuing formal requests for proposals on larger projects.

Acting Chief Mike Federico said the police service was following established purchasing procedures and working closely with the city. He also explained that some contracts can be awarded to sole-source suppliers under the board’s existing procurement rules, without requiring multiple competitive bids.

McRoberts pressed for greater disclosure when projects do go through competitive procurement, asking whether the names of the leading bidders and their proposed prices could be included in meeting packages. She said the information would allow board members and residents to see which companies competed for contracts and how their offers compared.

The discussion also addressed how bids are evaluated. Board members noted that procurement decisions are not necessarily based on the lowest price, with scoring systems used to assess qualifications and other factors. McRoberts agreed to include those evaluation scores in the information provided, allowing readers to see not only what each company proposed to charge, but how its submission was assessed.

Federico raised concerns about whether releasing financial information from unsuccessful bids could create commercial confidentiality issues. He said he was uncertain what restrictions might apply and suggested that the board consider those questions before determining how the information would be reported.

McRoberts maintained that the public should be able to scrutinize the figures when taxpayer money is involved.

“It’s the public’s money, so they get to see the quotes,” she told the board.

Members clarified that the motion was intended for larger capital expenditures requiring formal requests for proposals, rather than every purchase made by the police service. Contracts awarded through permitted sole-source arrangements and smaller purchases would not automatically be covered.

The distinction means the motion changes what information is reported about major competitive procurement decisions, rather than which purchases must be competitively tendered. The board’s existing Financial Management and Procurement policy continues to govern how those purchasing decisions are made.

Following the discussion, the board voted to approve McRoberts’s motion, establishing an expectation that future agenda packages for major capital projects requiring RFPs will contain more information about competing bids.

The precise format of those disclosures, including how any commercial confidentiality concerns will be addressed, was not settled during the public meeting.

The decision will give board members and residents a more detailed account of major contracting recommendations, including who competed for the work, what they proposed to charge and how their bids were evaluated.