Vendor Performance Management Policy

July 2020—Pilot version for vendor performance management (VPM) testing period.

On this page

• 1. Effective date
• 2. Context
• 3. Policy statement
• 4. Application
• 5. Definitions
• 6. General requirements
• 7. Performance evaluations
• 8. Vendor ratings
• 9. General responsibilities
• 10. Monitoring and compliance
• 11. References
• 12. Enquiries
• Annex A: Definitions
• Annex B: Commodity group pilots—Scorecards and key performance indicators

1. Effective date

1.1 The policy takes effect on July 1, 2020.

2. Context

2.1 Federal government procurement is required to be fair, open, and transparent, while providing value for money and demonstrating sound stewardship in support of the delivery of programs and services to Canadians.

2.2 Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is the Government of Canada's common service provider for procurement services, offering federal organizations a broad range of procurement solutions.

2.3 The policy establishes a vendor performance management approach for PSPC and its client departments to assess vendor performance and use vendor past performance information in awarding contracts.

3. Policy statement

3.1 Objective

• 3.1.1 To support acquisitions by using vendor past performance information to improve transparency, promote innovation, and ensure best value.

3.2 Expected results

An approach to vendor performance management that:

• 3.2.1 supports the Government of Canada’s overarching procurement and contracting objectives of best value, openness, fairness, and transparency;
• 3.2.2 enables the Government of Canada to incentivize good vendor performance while strengthening the means through which it can hold inadequate performers accountable;
• 3.2.3 strengthens the Government of Canada’s ability to manage vendor performance by proactively addressing performance issues;
• 3.2.4 provides a methodology to ensure consistent approaches to performance evaluations;
• 3.2.5 considers past performance when awarding contracts, giving vendors an incentive to improve performance throughout the contract lifecycle; and
• 3.2.6 provides for the appropriate recording, tracking, and management of past performance information through the Electronic procurement solution.

4. Application

4.1 The policy applies to contracting authorities for contracts under the authority of PSPC, and to business owners in PSPC and in other departments for those same contracts.

4.2 This policy applies to the piloted commodity groups listed in Annex B. Effective dates and details around pilot scope for each commodity group are listed in Annex B. Vendors will be informed in bid solicitation documents if the contract is subject to the policy under the pilot.

4.3 Exceptions to the above may be made with the approval of the Assistant Deputy Minister (or equivalent) of the contracting authority, provided that at least one of the following justifications applies and is documented on file:

• 4.3.1 a pressing emergency prevents the application of the policy. A pressing emergency may be an actual or imminent life-threatening situation, a disaster which endangers the quality of life or has resulted in the loss of life, or one that may result in significant loss or damage to Crown property;
  
• 4.3.2 it would not be in the public interest to apply the policy. This exception is available only for purchases in jurisdictions or with industries where it is not feasible to apply the provisions of the policy.

4.4 This policy does not apply to contracts entered into before the effective date of the policy, unless the contract is amended to incorporate the policy.

5. Definitions

5.1 See Annex A: Definitions.

6. General requirements

6.1 Solicitations and contracts subject to the policy must contain standard clauses to inform vendors that their performance will be evaluated.

6.2 Scorecards for each commodity group are included in Annex B: Commodity group pilots—Scorecards and key performance indicators and will be used to determine vendor performance scores. These include key performance indicators which are generally grouped into the performance categories of cost, schedule, quality, and management. The scorecards and key performance Indicators will also be available on the online system used for the piloting of the policy.

6.3 Vendor performance scores gathered during the pilots will be used for testing and verification purposes, to inform the development of the Vendor Performance Management Policy. They will not be retained for bid evaluation or other purposes, and will be removed from the online system at the completion of the pilots.

6.4 Vendor performance scores and vendor performance ratings will be treated by Canada as commercially confidential information, subject to:

• 6.4.1 situations such as joint ventures, because each party of the joint venture or equivalent may be able to determine the vendor performance scores or vendor performance ratings of the other parties as part of the bid evaluation;
• 6.4.2 the Access to Information Act; and
• 6.4.3 the Library and Archives of Canada Act.

6.5 PSPC may determine that a successor entity to a vendor with an existing history of inadequate performance is the same vendor as that original vendor for the purposes of this policy. If PSPC is considering making such a determination, it must provide the successor entity an opportunity to make written submissions on the issue.

6.6 The determination of whether the conditions required to certify payment to a vendor under section 34 of the Financial Administration Act are met is made independently of vendor performance scores.

7. Performance evaluations

7.1 Performance evaluations must take place at least every six months during the contract (interim performance evaluation), and once at the end of the contract (final performance evaluation). For contracts where the first milestone or deliverable is to be provided after a period longer than six months, the first performance evaluation must be completed at the time of the first milestone or deliverable. For contracts of less than twelve months, only a final performance evaluation must be completed.

• 7.1.1 Vendor performance scores can be revised if, during the warranty period, information becomes available to the contracting authority that would change the results of the related performance evaluation, in which case the normal performance evaluation process (described below) applies.
• 7.1.2 For standing offers, for ease of administration, each vendor must be provided with vendor performance scores that reflect the vendor’s overall performance under call-ups made against that standing offer. Performance under individual call-ups will be scored through surveys sent to business owners. The contracting authority will use the overall survey data to inform the draft vendor performance scores. Performance evaluations will apply at the level of the vendor’s entire standing offer, as per the normal performance evaluation process (described below), and will be led by the contracting authority.

7.2 At the start of the contract, business owners, together with contracting authorities, must discuss with vendors the performance expectations associated with the key performance indicators. They must also discuss the planned performance evaluation dates.

7.3 Business owners, together with contracting authorities, must have ongoing communications with vendors about performance and proactively raise issues as they occur. Business owners must inform contracting authorities of Vendor performance issues promptly during the life of a contract. Business owners must give vendors feedback on their performance against the key performance indicators at regular intervals, either as part of ongoing discussions about contract work or (if there are no such discussions) in clear written communications specific to performance.

7.4 Business owners, together with contracting authorities, must undertake performance evaluations. They must substantiate vendor performance scores with metrics, narratives or supporting documentation that is appropriate to the type of key performance indicators in question.

7.5 Performance evaluations use the scorecards, including the vendor performance evaluation scale, and the key performance indicators specified in Annex B: Commodity group pilots—Scorecards and key performance indicators of the applicable commodity group.

• 7.5.1 Vendor performance scores of 1 and 5 must be approved by the level of management 2 levels above the contracting authority
• 7.5.2 Narratives are mandatory to support vendor performance scores other than 3. Narratives must be factual, accurate, and fair, while being as objective as possible. They must not contain personal information as defined by the Privacy Act, and must reflect discussions with the vendor
• 7.5.3 Following the completion of a performance evaluation, vendors must be invited to provide feedback on the performance evaluation. The vendor may communicate feedback through business correspondence and through the online system, and may also request a meeting or conference call in order to discuss the performance evaluation. Discussions should take place within a reasonable time frame and outcomes should be documented
• 7.5.4 Final performance evaluations, and the resulting vendor performance scores, are to reflect the vendor’s overall performance during the life of the contract. The vendor performance scores from all previous performance evaluations under the same contract may be referred to during the final performance evaluation, but no particular formula or approach to integrating these previous evaluations applies
• 7.5.5 If a contract includes more than one commodity group, by default performance evaluations will be completed only for the main commodity group being purchased. Contracting authorities may decide to evaluate performance for multiple commodity groups if justified by the deliverables being purchased. If so, the contracting authority must indicate this decision to evaluate performance for multiple commodity groups in the contract documents
• 7.5.6 A partnership or non-incorporated joint venture undergoes performance evaluations as if it were a single vendor. In the online system, the resulting vendor performance scores will be assigned to each member of the non-incorporated joint venture and each partner within a partnership

7.6 Business owners, together with contracting authorities, must discuss the draft vendor performance scores with vendors. Vendors may request to meet with business owners and contracting authorities to discuss the draft vendor performance scores.

7.7 Vendor performance scores must be entered into the online system promptly. Business owners have 10 business days from the applicable milestone or interval to send the results of the performance evaluation (the draft vendor performance scores) to the contracting authority. The contracting authority then has 10 business days to review the draft vendor performance scores, enter them into the electronic procurement solution, and send them to the vendor.

7.8 If a vendor’s concerns about a vendor performance score cannot be resolved in discussions between the original parties, the matter will be escalated up to and including the director(s) general or regional director(s) general (or equivalents) responsible for the procurement.

7.9 Further dispute or appeal mechanisms are not available for the testing period, as the vendor performance scores and vendor performance ratings will only be used to inform the development of the vendor performance policy, and will not be used in bid evaluations or other purposes.

8. Vendor performance ratings

8.1 Vendor performance ratings must be calculated as follows:

• 8.1.1 Individually for each commodity group.
• 8.1.2 Using the most recent vendor performance score from each contract. If the contract has ended, this will be the vendor performance score from the final performance evaluation.
• 8.1.3 Using the following formula to calculate a rolling average of the most recent vendor performance scores (see 8.1.2), where scores from the current year (the 365 days preceding the bid evaluation date, or “year 5”) are given the most weight and the scores from 4 years ago (“year 1”) are given the least weight:

  Vendor performance rating =
     (average Y1 vendor performance score x # of contracts in Y1 x 1)
  + (average Y2 vendor performance score x # of contracts in Y2 x 2)
  + (average Y3 vendor performance score x # of contracts in Y3 x 3)
  + (average Y4 vendor performance score x # of contracts in Y4 x 4)
  + (average Y5 vendor performance score x # of contracts in Y5 x 5)
  
  (# of contracts in Y1 to Y5 x 15)

• 8.1.4 Using the same formula when no applicable vendor performance scores exist in one or more years, reducing the denominator accordingly.

8.2 Vendor performance ratings are determined differently in the following cases:

• 8.2.1 For complex or high-value contracts, vendor performance ratings may be calculated using vendor performance scores from only contracts of similarly high complexity or value, but only upon the contracting authority’s request and subject to the review and recommendation of the vendor performance management centre of expertise.
• 8.2.2 For contracts where performance evaluations will include multiple commodity groups (see 7.5.5), vendor performance ratings must be calculated using the same formula as in 8.1.3, but using the most recent vendor performance score from each contract in all applicable commodity groups.
• 8.2.3 The vendor performance scores resulting from contracts held by partnerships and non-incorporated joint ventures will be assigned to each constituent vendor and will form part of its vendor performance rating.
• 8.2.4 In the case of an acquisition of one company or entity by another company or entity, the vendor performance scores of the acquiring company or entity will become the vendor performance scores of the resulting single company or entity, and thus determine the vendor performance ratings of the resulting single company or entity.

9. General responsibilities

9.1 The vendor performance management centre of expertise is responsible to:

• 9.1.1 maintain, interpret, and administer the policy and provide oversight and guidance to PSPC and its client departments
• 9.1.2 ensure the successful input, storage, and use of performance information in the online system
• 9.1.3 develop standard vendor performance management clauses for inclusion in procurement documents, contracts, and other legal agreements
• 9.1.4 provide communications and training to support the implementation of the policy
• 9.1.5 track, analyze, and report on trends and systemic issues related to the policy

9.2 Business owners are responsible to:

• 9.2.1 evaluate and report on vendor performance, in collaboration with contracting authorities
• 9.2.2 provide feedback and comments to the vendor on performance at regular intervals, and discuss options to correct inadequate performance with the vendor in a timely manner
• 9.2.3 communicate feedback on vendor performance and the results of performance evaluations to contracting authorities in a timely manner
• 9.2.4 maintain open lines of communication with vendors, including serving as the first recourse for vendors challenging vendor performance scores
• 9.2.5 record and substantiate the results of all performance evaluations and related discussions

9.3 Contracting authorities are responsible to:

• 9.3.1 work closely with business owners to evaluate the performance of vendors over the course of contracts
• 9.3.2 communicate the results of performance evaluations to vendors in a timely manner
• 9.3.3 oversee and validate vendor performance scores, and ensure they are entered into the electronic procurement solution
• 9.3.4 maintain open lines of communication with vendors
• 9.3.5 incorporate information in requests for proposals (and equivalents) on how vendor performance ratings will be used during the selection process
• 9.3.6 incorporate standard vendor performance management clauses in procurement documents, contracts and legal agreements

9.4 Vendors are responsible to:

• 9.4.1 respond to communications about performance over the course of the contract, including communications about performance evaluations and vendor performance scores

10. Monitoring and compliance

10.1 PSPC will monitor the application of the policy to assess adherence and interpretation. This may include periodic audits or reviews in order to verify that the policy is appropriately implemented.

11. References

Acts

• 11.1 Access to Information Act
• 11.2 Privacy Act
• 11.3 Financial Administration Act
• 11.4 Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

Related publications

• 11.5 Treasury Board Secretariat Contracting Policy
• 11.6 Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Access to Information
• 11.7 PSPC Ineligibility and Suspension Policy

12. Enquiries

Please direct enquiries about this policy to the VPM Centre of Expertise.

Email: tpsgc.gestrendementfournisseur-supplierperfmgmt.pwgsc@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

Annex A: Definitions

Business owner:

The official who initiates a procurement based on operational needs, and who is responsible for matters concerning the technical content of a procurement. This term may be equivalent to the technical authority or project authority.

Commodity group:

A good, service, service related to goods, or construction, grouped at a level as per Annex B: Commodity group pilots—Scorecards and key performance indicators. Each group has a Goods and Services Identification Number (GSIN) or United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC). For the purposes of this policy, PSPC determines whether the GSIN or the UNSPSC will be used during the federal GSIN to UNSPSC transition process.

Complexity:

As per the definitions of levels of complexity in the Supply Manual, Annex: Characteristics of Acquisitions Program procurement complexity levels, as amended from time to time.

Contracting authority:

The PSPC procurement official who holds or reports to the official who holds contract signing authority for the procurement. (For general information only, see the definition of “Contract signing authority” in the Supply Manual.)

Department:

For the purpose of this policy, department has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act.

Online system:

An online system that includes a data warehouse for the collection, storage and use of vendor performance management data.

Key performance indicators (KPIs):

The set of measures used during performance evaluations and throughout the contract lifecycle. KPIs fall generally under the following performance categories: cost, quality, schedule, and management. Scorecards with KPIs for the pilot commodity groups will be added to Annex B as they are available.

Performance evaluation:

An evaluation by business owners and contracting authorities using PSPC scorecards, including key performance indicators, to determine a vendor’s level of performance in delivering upon their contractual obligations. Results of performance evaluations are called vendor performance scores. 

Vendor:

A legal entity with a unique business number that has or previously had a contract with, or has submitted a bid for a contract to, one or more contracting authorities.

Vendor performance evaluation scale:

A 1 to 5 scale used to evaluate vendor performance, according to the commodity grouping scorecard and key performance indicators. A general definition of the levels follows.

1. 5. Exceptional: The vendor’s performance greatly exceeds the expected performance
2. 4. Surpassed: The vendor’s performance exceeds the expected performance
3. 3. Achieved: The vendor’s performance meets the expected performance
4. 2. Moderate improvement needed: The vendor’s performance is below the expected performance
5. 1. Significant improvement needed: The vendor’s performance is significantly below the expected performance

VPM Centre of Expertise:

An office in PSPC dedicated to vendor performance management.

Vendor performance ratings:

An overall rating for a vendor in a commodity group, based on the vendor’s vendor performance scores under that commodity group. This rating is calculated using a formula contained in this policy, which takes as input the vendor performance scores and calculates as output a single vendor performance rating. A vendor may have more than one vendor performance rating if they contract under different commodity groups.

Vendor performance score:

Score assigned through a performance evaluation.

Annex B: Commodity group pilots—Scorecards and key performance indicators

Last updated: November 2021

In this section

• Apparel
• Construction
• Fairness monitoring
• Marine: Small vessels
• Task based informatics professional services

Apparel

In this section

• Quality: Defective items
• Schedule: High volume delivery
• Management: Communication and coordination

Quality: Defective items

Weighting: 40%

Customized goods includes commercial products with significant modifications and goods that are designed and built to meet Canada’s requirements. For these types of procurements, the contractor’s performance has a direct impact on the quality of the final deliverable(s).

Customized goods may be required to meet a set of specifications, standards and/or certification. This commonly involves an inspection process before acceptance. The frequency, severity of defects as well as the contractor’s responsiveness are key aspects of performance.

Indicators for this category include the:

• frequency of deliveries received with defective items not in conformance with the contract
• severity of defects (minor or major)
• number of items affected
• timeliness and effectiveness of corrective actions (for example, replacing defective items, identifying and addressing the underlying issue)

Schedule: High volume delivery

Weighting: 30%

For contracts that are not tied to an overall project timeline and have a large volume of items and orders, delivery of complete and on-time orders in accordance with contract requirements and schedules is a key aspect of performance. Allowances may be made for late or incomplete deliveries for reasons outside of the contractor’s responsibility and control, at the discretion of the evaluator.

When deliverables are received, if significant deficiencies are identified, Canada may require the deficiencies be addressed before the delivery is considered to be completed and on time.

Indicators for this category include the:

• frequency of scheduled deliveries that were late or only partially complete
• number of items affected
• timeliness and effectiveness of mitigating and corrective actions (for example, advanced notification of delays, schedule adjustments, identifying and addressing the underlying issue)

Management: Communication and coordination

Weighting: 30%

Measures the contractor’s effectiveness in managing and coordinating activities needed to execute the contract, without excessive intervention or reliance on government representatives.

Indicators for this category include (as applicable):

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• issue management: The contractor is proactive and effective in responding to and resolving any issues (for example, shipment delays, quality defects). Contracting and project authorities are informed of risks and issues and provided with corrective action plans in a timely manner. Any issues are resolved or effectively contained by the contractor
• delivery management: Deliveries contain the correct quantities (including for sizes and other requirements) as prescribed in the contract schedule. Invoices and packing slips are on time, accurate, and complete in accordance with the basis of payment and invoicing instructions included in the contract
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all contract stakeholders
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates agility, openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables quickly
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement, where applicable

The contractor’s performance is rated for each attribute according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently and with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Construction

In this section

• Quality: Workmanship
• Quality: Documentation
• Management: Communication and coordination
• Management: Health and safety
• Cost: Firm price basis of payment
• Schedule: Project management

Quality: Workmanship

Weighting: 10%

Evaluates the quality of the work at substantial completion, as well as the contractor’s effectiveness in identifying and addressing deficiencies before and after substantial completion.

Indicators for this category include the:

• workmanship and compliance with the quality provisions outlined in the drawings and specification as per the terms and conditions of the contract. This may include (but is not limited to) materials, grade, and measurements
• effectiveness and demonstration of effort to minimize and mitigate deficiencies during the construction/development phase of the project

Quality: Documentation

Weighting: 10%

Document deliverables must meet any standards, guidelines or other requirements specified in the contract. If there are multiple document deliverables, they may be evaluated collectively or individually and averaged to provide a single performance category score for the contractor, at the discretion of the evaluator. At the outset of the contract it should be discussed which formal document deliverables will be evaluated and the applicable standards and criteria used.

Indicators for this category include (if applicable):

• content requirements: The content of the document addresses all contract requirements
• level of detail: The level of detail provided is appropriate, without missing or extraneous information
• quality of writing: The quality of writing, including clarity, grammar, completeness, and consistent use of technical terms, meets or exceeds expectations
• format: The format follows the provided templates, and guidelines as applicable
• standards: The document meets or exceeds all applicable standards
• revisions: Minimal or no draft versions requiring revisions. Required revisions are minor, not extensive, and addressed promptly

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Management: Communication and coordination

Weighting: 20%

Evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in managing and coordinating activities needed to execute the contract.

Indicators for this category include (as applicable):

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• issue management: The contractor is proactive and effective in responding to and resolving any issues (for example, shipment delays, quality defects). Contracting and project authorities are informed of risks and issues and provided with corrective action plans in a timely manner. Any issues are resolved or effectively contained by the contractor
• delivery management: Deliveries contain the correct quantities (including for sizes and other requirements) as prescribed in the contract schedule. Invoices and packing slips are on time, accurate, and complete in accordance with the basis of payment and invoicing instructions included in the contract
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all contract stakeholders
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates agility, openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables quickly
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement, where applicable

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Management: Health and safety

Weighting: 20%

Evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in managing and administering the health and safety provisions as stipulated in the contract documents, required by provincial/territorial legislation, or that would otherwise be applicable to the site of the work.

Indicators for this category include:

• frequency and severity of safety related compliance issues, and the timeliness and effectiveness of corrective actions
• effectiveness of health and safety practices in minimizing the frequency and severity of avoidable injuries and incidents
• timely provision of health and safety documentation and reports meeting contract requirements and standards, such as health and safety programs, hazardous assessment site specific safety plans, provincial/territorial notices of project, and required permits, incident reports and timely updates to health and safety documentation as needed

Health and safety officials may include:

• departmental representatives
• authorities having jurisdiction (for example, Ministry of Labor representative, CNESST inspector, building inspector)
• Human Resources Branch, Occupational Health and Safety Directorate representatives
• construction and maintenance safety advisor
• any other health and safety officials designated in the contract

Cost: Firm price basis of payment

Weighting: 20%

Cost control is an important aspect of performance, even where there is a firm price basis of payment. It is not uncommon for the need for unscheduled work to arise during the course of a contract. Particularly in complex projects, unforeseen circumstances, issues and changes in requirements can occur. Typically, the unscheduled work that was not part of the original contract must be approved through a change request/contract amendment process. This often involves proposal submissions and negotiations with the vendor and can lead to unreasonable cost escalation.

Indicators for this category include:

• justification of change order requests
• reasonableness of price quotations for change order work
• timeliness of issue identification and notification
• identification and provisioning of credits (if applicable)

Schedule: Project management

Weighting: 20%

Requirements for complex contracts are commonly tied to an overall project schedule. Where the project schedule is primarily managed and controlled by the contractor, the schedule (project management) performance category evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in establishing and maintaining the schedule as well as the ability to mitigate potential delays, in accordance of the contract.

In certain contract situations is may not be possible to establish firm contract timelines prior to contract award, and the initial schedule may need to be adjusted as a result of post-award activities.

The contractor is often not solely responsible for the entire project but 1 of multiple stakeholders that share defined roles and responsibilities. On such projects delays can occur that are outside of the contractor’s responsibility and control. The tasks the contractor must perform may be dependent on tasks by other stakeholders being completed first or concurrently. Allowances should be made for excusable delays for circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control, at the discretion of the evaluator.

Indicators for this category include the:

• timeliness and effectiveness in establishing the initial schedule, including (as applicable) critical path, task orders, milestones, acceptance criteria and delivery schedule
• timeliness and effectiveness of progress monitoring and notification when revisions or clarification to the schedule, including deliverables, are required
• timeliness and effectiveness in addressing issues and minimizing delays within the contractor’s control
• contractor’s ability to improve efficiency throughout the contract, even if the overall timeline is delayed due to circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control

Fairness monitoring

In this section

• Quality: Fairness monitor performance
• Management: Fairness Monitoring Program
• Management: Client assessment
• Cost: Fixed time rate
• Schedule: On-time delivery rate

Quality: Fairness monitor performance

Weighting: 40%

Evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in supplying services and deliverables of the required quality, in accordance with the contract.
Services may include attending and providing feedback on contractor meetings, and reviewing and providing feedback on procurement-related documents.

Deliverables may include work plan(s), interim report(s), final report(s), addenda to the final report, and summary report. Deliverables are expected to be final versions of acceptable quality following prescribed templates. If significant revisions are required by Canada for acceptance, the assessment will be based on the quality of the original submission, not the revised version. Requested revisions that are only to address changes to reflect stylistic preferences should not impact quality assessments.

Indicators for this category include (as applicable):

• service delivery: Provision of comprehensive fairness reviews of required documents and engagement activities within reasonable timeframes
• understanding of scope: The feedback provided is limited to fairness related issues and does not include unsolicited input that is unrelated to the scope of the contract
• quality of writing: The quality of writing of the formal deliverables, including that the report:
  • conforms to the required template
  • is free of grammatical and typographical errors and uses consistent terminology, and
  • French and English versions are consistent
• quality of content: The content of formal deliverables is accurate with respect to the observed activity, and follows the provided standards, definitions, and guidelines regarding the assessment of fairness
• thoroughness of fairness assessments: Degree to which fairness questions, concerns and issues were proactively identified

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Management: Fairness Monitoring Program

Weighting: 20%

Evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in managing activities needed to execute the contract from the perspective of the Fairness Monitoring and Business Dispute Management Directorate.

Indicators for this category include:

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all contract stakeholders
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement, where applicable

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Management: Client assessment

Weighting: 20%

Measures the contractor’s effectiveness in managing activities needed to execute the contract from the perspective of the client (contracting authority for the procurement associated with the contract work). The management (client assessment) performance category provides a mechanism for the client to provide input into the overall vendor performance management evaluation. The overall scorecard is completed by the Fairness Monitoring Program representative.

Indicators for this category include:

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all stakeholders. This may include subcontractors, client department representatives, end users, third parties and other points of contact, as applicable for the contract
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates agility, openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables quickly
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Cost: Fixed time rate

Weighting: 10%

Cost control is an important aspect of performance where the level of effort associated with the work is uncertain and a firm price basis of payment is not applicable. The cost (fixed time rate) performance category evaluates aspects of contractor performance that are critical to ensuring cost control under contracts with a fixed time rate basis of payment.

Indicators for this category include:

• accuracy, timeliness and detailed cost breakdown of invoices
• reasonableness of billed hours relative to the expected level of effort for work performed. This criteria is evaluated relative to actual work performed, and not original contract estimated levels of effort which may be inaccurate
• justification and approval of additional work
• proactive savings and/or cost avoidance by the contractor

Schedule: On-time delivery rate

Weighting: 10%

Timely submission of formal contract deliverables is an important aspect of contractor performance. The schedule (on-time delivery rate) performance category is applicable to contracts where multiple deliverables are required within defined timeframes.

When deliverables are submitted, Canada may require corrections before acceptance. If significant corrective actions are required, the date the final accepted deliverable is provided is considered the completion date.

It is recognized that contracted timelines may be dependent on timely completion of actions or deliverables by Canada, and/or impacted by unanticipated events outside of the contractor's responsibility or control. When such circumstances arise, it is at the discretion of the evaluator to include an excusable delay adjustment in the evaluation of a deliverable or milestone.

The indicator for this category is: the number of key deliverables or milestones that were met on time in accordance with the requirements of the contract.

Marine: Small vessels

In this section

• Quality: Technical compliance
• Management: Communication and coordination
• Cost: Fixed time rate
• Schedule: Project management

Quality: Technical compliance

Weighting: 50%

Certain types of complex deliverables may have detailed technical specifications and performance requirements, including meeting established standards and certifications. Identified deficiencies and deviations from requirements must be addressed before final acceptance of deliverables. Deficiencies are the result of workmanship errors, as opposed to deviations which are intentional changes. Either may result in non-compliance with requirements that may or may not be acceptable.

The indicator for this category is: Compliance with all technical requirements and applicable standards in accordance with the contract.

Management: Communication and coordination

Weighting: 25% for small vessels, 15% for refits

Evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in managing and coordinating activities needed to execute the contract, without excessive intervention or reliance on government representatives.

Indicators for this category include (as applicable):

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• issue management: The contractor is proactive and effective in responding to and resolving any issues (for example, shipment delays, quality defects). Contracting and project authorities are informed of risks and issues and provided with corrective action plans in a timely manner. Any issues are resolved or effectively contained by the contractor
• delivery management: Deliveries contain the correct quantities (including for sizes and other requirements) as prescribed in the contract schedule. Invoices and packing slips are on time, accurate, and complete in accordance with the basis of payment and invoicing instructions included in the contract
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all contract stakeholders
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates agility, openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables quickly
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement, where applicable

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Cost: Fixed time rate

Weighting: 10% for refits, not applicable for small vessels

Cost control is an important aspect of performance where the level of effort associated with the work is uncertain and a firm price basis of payment is not applicable. The cost (fixed time rate) performance category evaluates aspects of contractor performance that are critical to ensuring cost control under contracts with a fixed time rate basis of payment.

Indicators for this category include:

• accuracy, timeliness and detailed cost breakdown of invoices
• reasonableness of billed hours relative to the expected level of effort for work performed. This criteria is evaluated relative to actual work performed, and not original contract estimated levels of effort which may be inaccurate
• justification and approval of additional work
• proactive savings and/or cost avoidance by the contractor

Schedule: Project management

Weighting: 25%

Requirements for complex contracts are commonly tied to an overall project schedule. Where the project schedule is primarily managed and controlled by the contractor, the schedule (project management) performance category evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in establishing and maintaining the schedule as well as the ability to mitigate potential delays, in accordance with the contract.

In certain contract situations is may not be possible to establish firm contract timelines prior to contract award, and the initial schedule may need to be adjusted as a result of post-award activities.

The contractor is often not solely responsible for the entire project but 1 of multiple stakeholders that share defined roles and responsibilities. On such projects delays can occur that are outside of the contractor’s responsibility and control. The tasks the contractor must perform may be dependent on tasks by other stakeholders being completed first or concurrently. Allowances should be made for excusable delays for circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control, at the discretion of the evaluator.

Indicators for this category include the:

• timeliness and effectiveness in establishing the initial schedule, including (as applicable) critical path, task orders, milestones, acceptance criteria and delivery schedule
• timeliness and effectiveness of progress monitoring and notification when revisions or clarification to the schedule, including deliverables, are required
• timeliness and effectiveness in addressing issues and minimizing delays within the contractor’s control
• contractor’s ability to identify opportunities to improve efficiency throughout the contract, even if the overall timeline is delayed due to circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control

Task based informatics professional services

In this section

• Quality: Resource quality and continuity
• Quality: Technical compliance
• Quality: Document quality
• Management: Communication and coordination
• Cost: Basis of payment
• Schedule: Project management

Quality: Resource quality and continuity

Weighting: 10%

The contractor’s effectiveness in supplying deliverables of the required quality, in accordance with the contract.

Indicators for this category include the:

• contractor’s effectiveness in providing quality resources (including replacements) as per the education and experience criteria specified in the contract, for the applicable resource category and level
• contractor’s effectiveness in assuring continuity and minimizing substitution of qualified resources

Quality: Technical compliance

Weighting: 10%

Certain types of complex deliverables may have detailed technical specifications and performance requirements, including meeting established standards and certifications. Identified deficiencies and deviations from requirements must be addressed before final acceptance of deliverables. Deficiencies are the result of workmanship errors, as opposed to deviations which are intentional changes. Either may result in non-compliance with requirements that may or may not be acceptable.

The indicator for this category is: Compliance with all technical requirements and applicable standards in accordance with the contract.

Quality: Document quality

Weighting: 10%

Document deliverables must meet any standards, guidelines or other requirements specified in the contract. If there are multiple document deliverables, they may be evaluated collectively or individually and averaged to provide a performance category score for the contractor, at the discretion of the evaluator. At the outset of the contract it should be discussed which formal document deliverables will be evaluated and the applicable standards and criteria used.

Indicators for this category include (if applicable):

• content requirements: The content of the document addressed all contract requirements
• level of detail: The level of detailed provided was appropriate, without missing or extraneous information
• quality of writing: The quality of writing, including clarity, grammar, completeness, and consistent use of technical terms, met or exceeded expectations
• format: The format follows the provided templates, and guidelines as applicable
• standards: The document met or exceed all applicable standards
• revisions: Minimal or no draft versions requiring revisions. Required revisions are minor, not extensive, and addressed promptly

The contractor’s performance is rated for each attribute according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Management: Communication and coordination

Weighting: 20%

Measures the contractor’s effectiveness in managing and coordinating activities needed to execute the contract, without excessive intervention or reliance on government representatives.

Indicators for this category include (as applicable):

• communication: The contractor is consistent and proactive in their communications, provides clear and comprehensive information, and timely progress updates
• issue management: The contractor is proactive and effective in responding to and resolving any issues (for example, shipment delays, quality defects). Contracting and project authorities are informed of risks and issues and provided with corrective action plans in a timely manner. Any issues are resolved or effectively contained by the contractor
• delivery management: Deliveries contain the correct quantities (including for sizes and other requirements) as prescribed in the contract schedule. Invoices and packing slips are on time, accurate, and complete in accordance with the basis of payment and invoicing instructions included in the contract
• relationship management: The contractor maintains and coordinates effective professional relationships with all contract stakeholders
• flexibility: The contractor demonstrates agility, openness, collaboration and cooperation in coordinating activities and in responding to inquiries and requested changes to deliverables quickly
• reliability: The contractor manages contract work independently, including following through on agreed upon action items, decisions and commitments, without excessive guidance, oversight or intervention required
• continuous improvement: The contractor demonstrates commitment to improving contract outcomes by acknowledging performance areas of weakness, taking corrective action, and providing valuable input for process improvement, where applicable

The contractor’s performance is rated for each indicator according to the following criteria:

• succeeds +: The contractor met or exceeded performance expectations consistently with no need for improvement noted
• succeeds -: The contractor did not always meet performance expectations. Some minor errors or shortcomings that could be improved upon were noted
• significant underperformance: The contractor did not consistently meet minimum performance expectations. There were repeated deficiencies noted which had a considerable impact on overall contractual outcomes, requiring significant effort to address

Based on the ratings received for all indicators, the contractor is scored according to the table below:

Cost: Basis of payment

Weighting: 20%

Firm Price

Cost control is an important aspect of performance, even where there is a firm price basis of payment. It is not uncommon for the need for unscheduled work to arise during the course of a contract. Particularly in complex projects, unforeseen circumstances, issues and changes in requirements can occur. Typically, the unscheduled work that was not part of the original contract must be approved through a change request/contract amendment process. This often involves proposal submissions and negotiations with the contractor and can lead to unreasonable cost escalation.

Indicators for this category include:

• justification of change order requests
• reasonableness of price quotations for change order work
• timeliness of issue identification and notification
• identification and provisioning of credits (if applicable)

Fixed time rate: Per diem rate

Cost control is an important aspect of performance where the level of effort associated with the work is uncertain and a firm price basis of payment is not applicable. The cost (fixed time rate) performance category evaluates aspects of contractor performance that are critical to ensuring cost control under contracts with a fixed time rate basis of payment.

Indicators for this category include:

• accuracy, timeliness and detailed cost breakdown of invoices
• reasonableness of billed hours relative to the estimated level of effort for work performed
• justification and approval of additional work
• proactive savings and/or cost avoidance by the contractor

Schedule: Project management

Weighting: 30%

Requirements for complex contracts are commonly tied to an overall project schedule. Where the project schedule is primarily managed and controlled by the contractor, the schedule (project management) performance category evaluates the contractor’s effectiveness in establishing and maintaining the schedule as well as the ability to mitigate potential delays, in accordance with the contract. In certain contract situations is may not be possible to establish firm contract timelines prior to contract award, and the initial schedule may need to be adjusted as a result of post-award activities.

The contractor is often not solely responsible for the entire project but 1 of multiple stakeholders that share defined roles and responsibilities. On such projects delays can occur that are outside of the contractor’s responsibility and control. The tasks the contractor must perform may be dependent on tasks by other stakeholders being completed first or concurrently. Allowances should be made for excusable delays for circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control, at the discretion of the evaluator.

Indicators for this category include the:

• timeliness and effectiveness in establishing the initial schedule, including (as applicable) critical path, task orders, milestones, acceptance criteria and delivery schedule
• timeliness and effectiveness of progress monitoring and notification when revisions or clarification to the schedule, including deliverables, are required
• timeliness and effectiveness in addressing issues and minimizing delays within the contractor’s control
• contractor’s ability to improve efficiency throughout the contract, even if the overall timeline is delayed due to circumstances beyond the contractor’s responsibility and control

In certain contract situations is it not possible to establish firm contract timelines prior to contract award, and may need to be adjusted as a result of post-award activities (for example, site assessments). Allowances may also be made for delays that are for reasons outside of the contractor’s responsibility and control. Some excusable delay may be accounted for in determining if a deliverable is to be considered late, at the discretion of the evaluator.

Date modified:

2022-04-28