Defence Expert Analysis and Assistance (DEAA)

Introduction Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is seeking information from suppliers capable of providing professional services in support of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) and other strategic defence activities, programs and projects. This Request For Information (RFI) is for information gathering only and does not constitute a commitment to procure. Definitions Project Management - is the discipline of planning, organizing, and controlling resources and activities to achieve a specific, temporary objective within defined constraints such as scope, time, cost, and quality for one specific project. Program Management - is the coordinated management of multiple related projects to achieve broader strategic objectives and benefits that cannot be realized if the projects are managed independently. Typical activities include program governance, policy, monitoring performance, manage risks and issues and ensuring alignment with the program objectives. Background Canada had a third party expert assistance contract to provide strategic advice to the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) program and projects in the areas of Project Management, Finance and Procurement services. With the creation of the Defence Investment Agency (DIA), Canada may need to extend these services to assist other defence programs and projects. In addition, the new Buy Canadian Procurement Policy Framework took effect on 16 Dec 2025 which requires federal solicitations to incorporate measures that prioritize and enhance participation by Canadian firms. Potential Scope of Professional Services The required professional services areas may include: Management Consulting; Project and/or Program management; Business Analysis; Financial or Human Resources Advice; Change Management; and Policy and Strategic Advice Objectives of the RFI • To understand how a change in the scope of the work and the number of possible end-users/clients may affect market capacity and capabilities. • To review resource categories used in the original contract; • To explore service delivery models; • To receive feedback on the application of the Buy Canadian Policy; and • To receive feedback on potential procurement strategies. Disclaimer This RFI is issued for information gathering and planning purposes only. It does not constitute a solicitation, a commitment to procure, or a commitment to fund any initiative. Responses to this RFI will not be used to pre‑qualify respondents or limit participation in any future Request for Proposal (RFP). Submissions will not be evaluated. Canada will not reimburse any costs incurred in preparing a response to this RFI. Elements of the feedback received may be used to refine draft documents should Canada proceed with a future procurement. Inquiries and Submission requirements Responses are requested to be submitted by 14 July, 2026 at 14:00 EDT. Inquiries and RFI responses are to be directed to: Ron Dearing, 613-462-3197 Ron.Dearing@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca Part 2 – Questions for Updated Statement of Work (SOW) from Original Contract Please review the updated SOW at Annex A. Using this SOW as the starting point, Canada could use different service delivery models, such as one contract or multiple contracts or Supply Arrangements. Please provide your response to the following questions. Based on the SOW requirements and the additional clients (in addition to supporting the NSS activities suppliers may now provide support to other defence activities ( including the DIA, Army, Air Force and other defence activities), please provide your ideas and recommendations for the following service delivery models: Question 1.One tasked based contract – do you believe the increased scope of work with additional clients could be successfully completed by one contract? How many concurrent tasks could you conduct in a 6 month period? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of a single contract? Question 2. One solicitation with two tasked based contracts to be awarded - if multiple contracts are awarded, what would be a reasonable percentage of the tasked work awarded between the top ranked bidder and the second place bidder? What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiple contracts? Is a yearly balance of the percentage of work reasonable? Can you provide another alternative to a two contract awards for the requirement? Question 3. Do you believe that the Financial Specialist Resources, Procurement Specialist Resources and Project Management Resources are applicable to work with all defence activities programs and projects? Question 4. Are the resource categories and educational required levels of experience outlined in 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 still valid? Question 5. At 6.4.4 Other Specialist resources are these resource descriptions useful if Canada put them into a task or contract? Should we change anything in the descriptions? How difficult would it be to find resources who can do this to support the Canadian military requirements? Question 6. Do you recommend additional resources that may be required to conduct the SOW scope of work? Question 7. Do you recommend any additional input on the SOW? Question 8. To get a better understanding of the possible workload could you please provide an estimate of the number of third party advice tasks or contracts similar to the SOW at Annex A, that you have conducted in the last 5 years for projects and/or programs supporting the Canadian military for each of the following: 1. Navy Activities (this can include Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy); 2. Army Activities; 3. Air Force Activities; and 4. other defence activities. For a typical Supply Arrangement (SA) model, streams of work are created and suppliers submit a SA response to become qualified in some or all streams. Then authorized government users can issue a RFP by email to every qualified supplier in the specific stream with a proposal due in as little as 14 days. Rates would be included in the RFP response and be evaluated in accordance with the RFP defined evaluation criteria. Experience has indicated that defence activities often include multiple disciplines to conduct their analysis and to perform the work. For this example please assume Stream 1 is as follows: Program and Project Management. This will include all aspects of Annex A para 6.2 Project Management Specialist 6.3 Finance Specialist and 6.4 Procurement Specialist. Junior, intermediate and Senior categories would not be defined. Question 9. What would be the advantages and disadvantages to use a SA for this type of work? Question 10. Can you recommend any other alternative methods of supply that you have seen utilized in a NATO, Five Eyes or other solicitation? Question 11. Can you recommend any other streams that could be added to the SA to assist in defence activities? Part 3: Questions on the Application of the Buy Canadian Procurement Policy Framework As announced on December 16, 2025, PSPC, as the exclusive authority for procurement for the Government of Canada, has developed the Buy Canadian Procurement Policy Framework which took effect on that date. The Buy Canadian Policy (BCP) Framework (https://canadabuys.canada.ca/en/buy-canadian-policy) provides an overarching foundation for Buy Canadian procurement policies to strengthen Canada’s economic resilience and industrial capacity, and support domestic businesses and workers, by prioritizing Canadian suppliers, materials and content in federal procurements. As an integral component of the Framework, the Policy on Prioritizing Canadian Suppliers and Canadian Content in Strategic Federal Procurements (CSCC) (https://canadabuys.canada.ca/en/buy-canadian-policy/policy-prioritizing…) introduces measures to prioritize Canadian suppliers and incorporate Canadian content in strategic procurements through defined eligibility criteria and evaluation approaches in future solicitations. In light of the Framework and associated policies, Canada is seeking input to understand whether there are Canadian suppliers with capacity to meet the requirements for these procurements, and if suppliers can offer Canadian Value-Added. Future solicitations for professional services in support of the NSS may be subject to the BCP and CSCC. In accordance with the CSCC, competition for procurements subject to it’s provisions are open to Canadian suppliers and, if any international trade agreements apply to the solicitation, Suppliers of an applicable trading partner, including the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO-GPA) or another applicable Trade Agreement with Canada. See Appendix B CSCC for more details. Buy Canadian Policy Definitions: Canadian Service means: a service wholly provided by (natural persons/individuals) based in Canada. Canadian Value-Added (CAD) means: In relation to services, a Canadian service or the proportion of the service contract performed by natural persons based in Canada. After reviewing the BCP and CSCC policies, Annex A and Annex B please respond to the following questions: Question 12. – Which categories of professional services supporting the NSS does your firm have capacity to provide through natural persons/individuals based in Canada? For each category, what percentage of the work could be performed by natural persons/individuals based in Canada? Question 13. - Which categories of professional services supporting the NSS may be limited or unavailable within Canada? What barriers exist to developing or expanding domestic capacity in these areas? Question 14. – How would your firm propose to complete the Canadian Content Attestation Form (Annex B) for future professional services solicitations in support of the NSS, including a line-item breakdown identifying where your firm can provide Canadian Value-Added? Does your firm anticipate any challenges in completing this form? Does your firm have any suggestions for adapting the Canadian Content Attestation Form for professional services solicitations in support of the NSS, in order to ensure fairness in the evaluation? Question 15. – Does your firm see any challenges with the manner in which compliance is structured and if so, do you have suggestions on how to ensure fairness while facilitating compliance? Part 4: Questions on a Dynamic Task Competition Model Please review the information at Annex C and then respond to the questions below. This Option shifts the client's development of the SOW to a future time, and focuses on the supplier’s ability to be flexible and find resources relatively quickly. Phase 1: Question 16. Is a minimum of three vendors reasonable? Should we consider more or less? Why? Question 17. One method of evaluating your corporate experience in supplying professional services to military organizations is to evaluate the number of contracts or tasks, and subsequently, the number of consultants that you provided on those files in a given time frame. Is this logical to evaluate? Is there a way to categorize different sizes and scopes of contracts, to ensure we are comparing each bidder fairly? Question 18. Should we set a minimum number of contracts, tasks or resources? Is it better to make this a range, and give points based on the number of resources in a given contract/task? How would you like to be evaluated for this particular skill, that makes sense for the entire industry? Question 19. Is this information easy to present to Canada? How can we make this easier on you from an administrative perspective? Question 20. Based on your experience or knowledge of professional services in a military context, what are the high-level categories of professional services work that are typically seen supporting military organizations? Establishing these areas of expertise, or domains, can potentially help develop evaluation criteria, or parameters of types of contracts we ask you to submit as evidence of experience. Question 21. If we limit the acceptable experience from contracts with military organizations in NATO and other military organizations allied with Canada, does that impact your ability to participate in a solicitation? Phase 2: Question 22. In phase 2 qualified suppliers will need to review draft Statements of Work and provide feedback. What distinguishes the best review/feedback process in the industry from an average process? How can we convert those qualities into criteria we evaluate? Question 23. In your experience providing professional services to provide advice to government or large private entities, does our “SOW Review and Feedback Task” (See description of Phase 2 in Annex B) align with industry standards or practices? What should we consider including as part of the scope for this task? Initially, it will be hard to predict the types of requirements we receive, so to set parameters around time frame, and basis of payment, we considered categorizing each Draft SOW into a level of complexity (Low, Medium and High). Each of these could have time frames for review, and firm fees for performing that review. Question 24. Is this logical, based on your industry experience? What characteristics would you use to distinguish requirements you have seen from government entities, or large private organizations? Question 25. How long would your firm need to review a Draft SOW on average? What would you estimate as reasonable time frames for Low/Medium/High? We are considering setting the firm fee for Low, Medium and High SOW reviews, which would be applicable to each vendor, and would be the same price. Question 26. What would be a reasonable price, applied universally to the industry, for this type of work? We will not hold these numbers as final, they are a means to land on a fair price for all Contract Holders if we decide to use this method of payment. One of the risks of this model, is the question of “What happens if a vendor does not provide feedback? Or provides extremely minimal feedback?” The system works well when everyone participates equally, but it may falter if one or more vendors do not participate, or put in minimal effort. Question 27 Should the Phase 2 SOW Review Task be mandatory? What are the risks to your firm if we make that a mandatory requirement of the contract, and make participation in Phase 2, a condition of competing for the Task in Phase 3? Question 28. If the phase 2 SOW Review Task is not mandatory what should be the repercussions of submitting no or a minimal review response? What are reasonable repercussions of repeated non or minimal review submissions? Phase 3: Question 29. Assuming we categorize SOWs into Low/Medium/High complexity, what is a reasonable time frame for your firm to respond to a Task Solicitation Package of each complexity level? Overall Questions: Question 30. What are the biggest risks to you if Canada uses this model? Question 31. What are the biggest pain points, or administrative burdens if Canada uses this model? Is there a way to mitigate them, in your opinion? Question 32. Are there aspects you like about the model? Some you dislike? What would you change about the aspects you dislike? Question 33. Do you have any other input for Canada to consider in conducting this activity?