Bid-rig acquitted launch $30M suit
Two years after trial, TPG owner targets government investigators
Say this about Don Powell, the owner of TPG Technology: he is relentless.
Two years after he and a multitude of technology consultants were acquitted of 60 charges of rigging bids to win technology contracts with the federal government, Powell on Thursday launched a $30-million civil claim against government investigators.
He was joined in this by two colleagues — Sue Laycock and Marina Durward — as well as TPG and Spearhead Management Canada, which is also owned by Powell.
The five plaintiffs are also seeking $13 million from Shaun Pritchard, the former vicepresident of sales for Ridge Falls House. It was Pritchard’s 2005 complaint to Public Works about computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency that provided a trigger for a decade’s worth of investigations and litigation.
Public Works kicked the complaint to the Competition Bureau, the federal agency responsible for enforcing competition rules. The Bureau prepared its case and forwarded it to federal Crown prosecutor Denis Pilon.
Early in 2009, the Crown laid more than 150 charges of bid rigging and related charges against 14 individuals and seven companies. Most of the charges were dropped or tossed out along the way.
The Bureau late Thursday had not yet been served with the suit and would for now decline comment, said spokeswoman Marie-France Faucher.
However, the government is expected to put up a defence, not least because it does not want to weaken the powers of Bureau investigators. The Bureau only last month unveiled a strategy for fighting “fraud, collusion and corruption in federal contracts.”
Powell’s statement of claim targets five current and former officials with the Competition Bureau, the federal agency that conducted the investigation. The Bureau’s current commissioner, John Pecman, is named, as is the former commissioner, Melanie Aitken, and Sheridan Scott, a senior official.
However, the main focus of the suit appears to be the two investigators who prepared the case that wrongdoing occurred. The document cites 36 “particulars of negligence” involving Stephen Fitzpatrick and Colette MorinWade.
These range from an alleged failure to properly understand the nature of the computer services industry and government contracting to an alleged failure to consult witnesses other than those who were Powell’s competitors.
The statement of claim alleges Morin-Wade had “little or no formal training” before she began her investigation and that neither she nor Fitzpatrick received instruction about an investigator’s duty to remain objective and interview “all relevant witnesses.”
The plaintiffs are arguing that more due diligence on the part of all players involved — Pritchard, Public Works officials and Bureau investigators — would have put a quick end to an unfounded procurement complaint. The statement of claim also alleges the investigators “intended to injure the plaintiffs.”
Powell and his colleagues had formed teams in 2005 to bid on more than $60 million worth of computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada and Public Works. In doing so, they exchanged information about consultants’ daily rates, which is permitted under government contract rules. But the Crown, which based its trial strategy on evidence collected by the Bureau, produced no evidence of collusion over setting the price of the final bids.
The plaintiffs argue in their statement of claim they are now owed significant sums for the loss of income and reputation they suffered while the stigma of criminal charges hung over them.
Here’s how the claims break down. From the Competition Bureau, the two corporate plaintiffs are seeking $12.5 million for loss of income while Laycock and Durward are suing for loss of income and commissions of $4 million and $2 million respectively. The two women lost their former jobs after they were charged in 2009.
The five plaintiffs are demanding $1 million each for punitive damages. The other sums sought relate to legal fees and damages for “negligent investigation,” “abuse of public office” and “loss of reputation.”
The vast majority of the $13,050,000 claim against Shaun Pritchard has to do with alleged “economic losses.” Pritchard declined to comment.