|
|
26. The Tribunal, while noting the approved labour rates included with Argair’s May 4, 2010, submission, is not convinced that these rates should apply to preparing a response to a solicitation. In particular, the Tribunal is of the view that Argair has not provided adequate justification to support its claimed rate of reimbursement. The Tribunal considers that the most relevant evidence regarding Argair’s actual hourly rate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------. The Tribunal further notes that Argair did not provide supporting documentation to justify its claim that a higher rate should apply. Thus, the Tribunal does not consider that Argair demonstrated that its claimed hourly rate of $----- was one that it had applied to short-term work periods, including those relating to the preparation of a proposal. In this regard, the Tribunal accepts PWGSC’s submission that the rate for the preparation of the bid should not exceed the rate bid by Argair for its candidates’ senior engineering services. The Tribunal, therefore, considers the rate of $----- an hour to be reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances.
|
