The Canadian International Trade Tribunal - 1628 Words

Introduction This assignment will examine and analyse the case and its determination from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITA) which involves Corel Corporation and the Department of National Revenue. Corel Corporation, which gets its name from Cowpland Research Laboratory, is a software company in Canada which is headquartered here in the nation’s capital. Corel specializes in graphics design, graphics software, processing graphics, and graphics programming (Corel Corporation, 2014). COMPLAINANT’S POSITION Description of What the Complainant is Seeking and Why: The complainant in the case of Corel vs. the Department of National Revenue is Corel Corporation. On June 12 of 1998, Corel Corporation submitted a complaint (File # PR†¦show more content†¦Microsoft is referred to as the ‘intervener’ in this case (CITT, 2014). Corel is seeking a compensation award from the Tribunal since Corel was unable to participate in the competition for the procurement, which meant that they could not make any profits, and Corel incurred expense costs in preparing their complaints. †¢ Corel also states that the purchase was processed in a discriminating and detrimental way of the veracity of the procurement system in Canada (CITT, 2014). †¢ Specifically, Corel states that some actions conflicted with articles from the Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP), articles from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and articles from the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). †¢ Corel alleges that: - PWGSC put together the procurement licence and requirement all together in a single RFP which was not completed by the Department of National Revenue in a previous purchase of office automation licences from Microsoft (CITT, 2014). - There were some requirements forced on bidders but not forced on Microsoft. - There were large cost amounts that the Department of National Revenue dealt with that Microsoft was supposed to be charged with. - A bond requirement was only imposed on Corel Corporation and not imposed on Microsoft. - The methodology for selecting and evaluating did not meet government’s goal of demonstrating equal opportunity, was unfairly designed, broke government purchasing rules, did not follow