Engineers Canada logo

Accountability in Accreditation Committee issues request for proposals

2019.08.06

Engineers Canada has refined the process for the selection of the winning Bidder, and Section 4.2 of the July 18, 2019 RFP is amended as follows:

4.2 – Evaluation of Proposals / Bidders

Phase 1 – Review of Proposals – Upon the closing of the RFP submission period, all proposals received will be reviewed by the Review Team. The assessment of each proposal will be based on the contents of the Bidders’ written proposal and any statements provided in writing, if needed, in response to requests for clarification made by Engineers Canada. Phase 1 involves an evaluation of the proposals against the criteria defined in s. 4.1 of the RFP. Phase 1 will be weighted as 40% of the total score.

Phase 2 – Interviews – The 3 Bidders receiving the highest scores in Phase 1 will be invited to participate in an interview with the Review Team, which will be held via Skype. The interview will further assess the Bidder’s skills, knowledge, and overall approach to the project. Phase 2 involves an evaluation of fit, communication style and approach, knowledge of the evaluation and accreditation field, and the ability to impart knowledge. The Bidder that receives the highest combined score of Phase 1 and Phase 2 will proceed to Phase 3. Phase 2 will be weighted as 60% of the total score.

Phase 3 –Bidder Selection – Engineers Canada will select and notify the Bidder who achieves the highest combined score from Phase 1 and 2. The Bidder will be asked to provide two references.

NOTE – Engineers Canada will not be disclosing the evaluation scorecards or revealing Proposal / Bidder scores.

The decision of the team will be final and binding on all process participants. Engineers Canada reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted.

Read the full request for proposals

2019.07.18

Engineers Canada’s 2019-2021 strategic plan identifies accountability in accreditation as a strategic priority (Strategic priority 2). The Accreditation Board understands the need to offer greater evidence-based transparency to the Engineers Canada Board, engineering provincial and territorial regulators, and deans of engineering higher education institutions in Canada, and Strategic priority 2 speaks to this. Through this work, the Accreditation Board must also demonstrate that the accreditation criteria and procedures system is robust, while acknowledging and addressing weaknesses in a data-driven, fact-based manner.

As a result, the Accountability in Accreditation Committee has been established to address this strategic priority through:

  • a documented, annual performance measurement process;
  • better communication;
  • documented continual improvement processes; and
  • greater transparency.

To that end, Engineers Canada is seeking proposals from entities and/or individuals to work with the Accreditation Board to demonstrate greater accountability in accreditation. More particularly, we require the assistance of a Consultant to help establish a framework with which to assess the transparency and effectiveness of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) accreditation system.

Here is a list of questions we’ve received on this proposal, along with responses.

  • Question: Can you confirm that on page 5 in section 3.3, stakeholder validation is not a deliverable expected of the consultant, and that Engineers Canada will work with stakeholders to validate the logic model, evaluation schedule, and evaluation process separately from the work completed by the consultant?
    Answer: This is correct.  The consultant is not expected to produce stakeholder validation.

  • Question: In 3.1, Scope Item 1 b), it says, "These all must take into account stakeholder priorities". Additionally, in the Strategic Plan on p. 12, it states the 2019 operational objective of an "Assessment process to assess transparency and effectiveness of accreditation system to be designed collaboratively with stakeholders." If stakeholder validation is not required within the consultant's scope, then how will stakeholder priorities be identified?
    Answer: Stakeholder priorities will be identified through consultation with identified stakeholders. The Accountability in Accreditation Committee will validate who the stakeholders are.

  • Question: On the bottom of page 2, it says, "More particularly, we require the assistance of a Consultant to help establish a framework with which to assess the transparency and effectiveness of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) accreditation system (the “Project”)."  We were unsure how an evaluation framework could assess transparency—could it be perhaps that the framework should "illustrate/ provide/ demonstrate transparency by assessing the effectiveness" of the accreditation system?
    Answer: We agree that assessing transparency is a challenge.  We expect the consultant to work with Engineers Canada to explore ways in which this could be evaluated.

  • Question: Can you confirm that the intended outcomes of the Project (outlined in section 3.2) are broader than what is expected of the consultant—that Engineers Canada itself would use the work of the consultant towards achieving these outcomes, in part to achieve the Strategic Priority 2: Accountability in Accreditation.
    Answer: Yes, we can confirm this is the case.

  • Question: Are you able to provide a sense of the budget for this proposal? 
    Answer: While we do not share our budget information, we can share that our initial estimate of time commitment is 500 hours, to be re-evaluated as work progresses.

  • Question: Between the anticipated project start date of September 10th and February, how does the committee typically meet? When do they meet? For example, would the committee be meeting at the national meetings in September and February?
    Answer:  The committee meets on an as-needed basis, either face-to-face or by teleconference. There may be an opportunity to meet at the national meetings based on committee members’ availability, but additional meetings could be planned.

  • Question: Are there established times on the committee’s agenda for discussing the program logic model and evaluation measures and processes?
    Answer:  The committee agenda is developed on an-needed basis.  A discussion on the program logic model and evaluation measures and processes can be added to any of the Committee meetings.

  • Question: What is the timeline for the development of the preliminary logic model by Engineers Canada (as noted in Section 3.3 of the RFP)?
    Answer: A preliminary draft has been created and would be made available to the selected vendor.

  • Question: The Scope of work (section 3.1) lists “by December 1, 2019" as the timeframe for completing the evaluation strategy. Is December 1 the deadline for the Bidder’s work of creating the strategy, or is it expected that Engineers Canada’s validation of the strategy with key stakeholders will also be completed by that date?
    Answer:  December 1 the deadline for the Bidder’s work of creating the strategy.