aoc – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 12 Results  www.tcce.gc.ca
  PR-2013-040 _ TCCE - En...  
3. En 2011, à l'issu du processus compétitif de la DAOC, des accords d'offres à commandes (AOC), qui sont arrivés à échéance le 31 décembre 2013, ont été octroyés à plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM.
3. In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOA), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges that the allocation of work to other SOA holders was biased and marred by “irregularities”. Article 7 of the SOAR and Article A13 of the SOAs specify the method for allocating work.
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
En 2011, à l’issu du processus concurrentiel de la DAOC, plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM, se sont vus octroyer des accords d’offres à commandes (AOC) qui ont pris fin le 31 décembre 2013.
In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOAs), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges “irregularities” [translation], including non-compliance with the “legal, administrative and regulatory provisions of the process”[4] [translation] by CIDA and/or DFATD in the awarding of the SOAs. GESFORM also alleges that CIDA and/or DFATD engaged in “arbitrary and unfair practices”[5] [translation].
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
En 2011, à l’issu du processus concurrentiel de la DAOC, plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM, se sont vus octroyer des accords d’offres à commandes (AOC) qui ont pris fin le 31 décembre 2013.
In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOAs), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges “irregularities” [translation], including non-compliance with the “legal, administrative and regulatory provisions of the process”[4] [translation] by CIDA and/or DFATD in the awarding of the SOAs. GESFORM also alleges that CIDA and/or DFATD engaged in “arbitrary and unfair practices”[5] [translation].
  PR-2013-040 _ TCCE - En...  
3. En 2011, à l'issu du processus compétitif de la DAOC, des accords d'offres à commandes (AOC), qui sont arrivés à échéance le 31 décembre 2013, ont été octroyés à plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM.
3. In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOA), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges that the allocation of work to other SOA holders was biased and marred by “irregularities”. Article 7 of the SOAR and Article A13 of the SOAs specify the method for allocating work.
  PR-2013-040 _ TCCE - En...  
3. En 2011, à l'issu du processus compétitif de la DAOC, des accords d'offres à commandes (AOC), qui sont arrivés à échéance le 31 décembre 2013, ont été octroyés à plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM.
3. In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOA), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges that the allocation of work to other SOA holders was biased and marred by “irregularities”. Article 7 of the SOAR and Article A13 of the SOAs specify the method for allocating work.
  PR-2013-040 _ TCCE - En...  
3. En 2011, à l'issu du processus compétitif de la DAOC, des accords d'offres à commandes (AOC), qui sont arrivés à échéance le 31 décembre 2013, ont été octroyés à plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM.
3. In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOA), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges that the allocation of work to other SOA holders was biased and marred by “irregularities”. Article 7 of the SOAR and Article A13 of the SOAs specify the method for allocating work.
  PR-2013-040 _ TCCE - En...  
4. La plainte de GESFORM contient plusieurs aveux selon lesquels elle ne détenait pas, au moment du dépôt de sa plainte, d'éléments de preuves pouvant étayer ses soupçons ou hypothèses de partialité ou de crainte raisonnable de partialité et/ou d'« irrégularités » quant à la manière selon laquelle l'ACDI et/ou le MAECD ont suivi la méthode d'attribution des travaux suivant l'article 7 de la DAOC et l'article A13 des AOC.
4. GESFORM's complaint contains several admissions according to which it did not hold, when it filed its complaint, any evidence in support of its suspicions or assumptions of actual or reasonably apprehended bias and/or “irregularities” as to the manner CIDA and/or DFATD followed the procedure for allocating work pursuant to Article 7 of the SOAR and Article A13 of the SOAs. Therefore, GESFORM's complaint is premature or speculative.
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
Plus fondamentalement, si GESFORM dit ou prétend fonder sa plainte sur ce qu’elle allègue être des « irrégularités », le Tribunal est d’avis qu’il s’agit plutôt d’une contestation tardive de la méthode d’attribution des travaux prévue à l’article 7 de la DAOC (reprise à l’article A13 des AOC).
More fundamentally, while GESFORM states or claims that it based its complaint on what it alleges are “irregularities”, the Tribunal is of the view that this is rather a late objection concerning the method of awarding the work set out in article 7 of the SOAR (repeated in section A13 of the SOAs). Ultimately, the very basis of GESFORM’s complaint is the finding, undeniable but nonetheless late, that article 7 of the SOAR grants the evaluators almost complete leeway for the final selection of the consultants from the classification list.[10]
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
En 2011, à l’issu du processus concurrentiel de la DAOC, plusieurs soumissionnaires retenus, dont GESFORM, se sont vus octroyer des accords d’offres à commandes (AOC) qui ont pris fin le 31 décembre 2013.
In 2011, following the competitive process of the SOAR, standing offer arrangements (SOAs), which expired on December 31, 2013, were awarded to several winning bidders, including GESFORM. No work was allocated to GESFORM under the SOA that it held. GESFORM alleges “irregularities” [translation], including non-compliance with the “legal, administrative and regulatory provisions of the process”[4] [translation] by CIDA and/or DFATD in the awarding of the SOAs. GESFORM also alleges that CIDA and/or DFATD engaged in “arbitrary and unfair practices”[5] [translation].
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
Le Tribunal a déjà examiné une plainte similaire déposée par GESFORM le 10 février 2014 portant sur le même marché public.[6] GESFORM alléguait que l’attribution des AOC aux termes de l’article 7 de la DAOC et de l’article A13 des AOC a été entachée de partialité et/ou d’« irrégularités ».
The Tribunal has already examined a similar complaint filed by GESFORM on February 10, 2014 relating to the same procurement.[6] GESFORM alleged that the award of SOAs under article 7 of the SOAR and article A13 of the SOA was biased and marred by “irregularities”. However, GESFORM indicated that it did not then have any evidence in support of its suspicions or assumptions. On the other hand, GESFORM indicated that it was waiting for documents following an access to information request. The Tribunal found that the complaint was premature and informed GESFORM that it would be able to file a new complaint with the Tribunal if it were subsequently able to present to the Tribunal evidence demonstrating a reasonable indication of a breach of one or several obligations pursuant to the
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
Le Tribunal a déjà examiné une plainte similaire déposée par GESFORM le 10 février 2014 portant sur le même marché public.[6] GESFORM alléguait que l’attribution des AOC aux termes de l’article 7 de la DAOC et de l’article A13 des AOC a été entachée de partialité et/ou d’« irrégularités ».
The Tribunal has already examined a similar complaint filed by GESFORM on February 10, 2014 relating to the same procurement.[6] GESFORM alleged that the award of SOAs under article 7 of the SOAR and article A13 of the SOA was biased and marred by “irregularities”. However, GESFORM indicated that it did not then have any evidence in support of its suspicions or assumptions. On the other hand, GESFORM indicated that it was waiting for documents following an access to information request. The Tribunal found that the complaint was premature and informed GESFORM that it would be able to file a new complaint with the Tribunal if it were subsequently able to present to the Tribunal evidence demonstrating a reasonable indication of a breach of one or several obligations pursuant to the
  PR-2014-012 _ TCCE - En...  
« Le représentant autorisé de l’ACDI (responsable technique) évaluera les curriculum vitæ des personnes proposées par les Consultants qui font partie de la liste de classement des consultants d’AOC choisie et suite à une analyse il sélectionnera la personne qu’il juge la plus appropriée, l’analyse sur laquelle le choix est basé sera documentée au dossier. L’analyse pour sélectionner la personne la plus appropriée prendra en considération le cadre de référence spécifique à la demande de services, l’expérience de la personne proposée et tout autre facteur déterminé par le représentant autorisé de l’ACDI (responsable technique) ».
[10].   “CIDA’s authorized representative (technical officer) will evaluate the CVs of the persons proposed by the Consultants who are part of the chosen classification list of SOA consultants and, following an analysis, will select the person he or she considers most appropriate. The analysis on which the selection is based will be documented in the record. The analysis to select the most appropriate person will consider the frame of reference specific to the request for services, the experience of the proposed person and any other factor determined by CIDA’s authorized representative (technical officer)” [translation]. Ultimately, such an evaluation is left completely to the evaluator’s judgment (apart from the obligation to document); the criteria are vague, the weighting of the criteria is unknown; unstated criteria are contemplated.