Public Services and Procurement Canada
Evaluation of the risk-based defence procurement pilot project

On this page

Executive summary

The risk-based defence procurement pilot (the pilot) allowed for a temporary delegation of authority to the minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to enter into and amend contracts and contractual arrangements for lower risk and low-medium complexity defence procurements exceeding PSPC's contracting limits for the period between November 2018 and April 2020. PSPC led the implementation of the pilot, in partnership with Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and the Department of National Defence (DND). Over the 18-month pilot period, PSPC approved 17 lower-risk defence procurements worth a total of over $2.5 billion through the temporary delegation of authority.

This evaluation provides information on the implementation of the pilot and the achievement of its objectives as of the end of its implementation period. Evaluation findings will be used as part of senior level discussions regarding the possible continuation and expansion of revised contracting authorities.

The 4 objectives set for the pilot were:

  1. approval levels for defence procurements undertaken by PSPC are appropriately identified based on assessment of risk
  2. administrative processes are streamlined and lead to faster approvals for a large number of PSPC defence procurements
  3. Treasury Board (TB) is able to focus its approval on higher risk and complex contracts
  4. the implementation of DND's Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) is supported and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are better met

The evaluation of the pilot was undertaken by the Office of Program Evaluation, PSPC, between December 2019 and May 2020. This report summarizes key observations made using a variety of methods, including interviews and surveys with representatives of the 3 stakeholder departments as well as the analysis of pilot files and data.

Conclusions

The evaluation reached the following conclusions on the achievement of the pilot's objectives:

Overall, the evaluation found that the pilot across its 18-month period, produced recognized benefits without evidence of harm to the Crown. As a result, the evaluation has concluded that there is merit in PSPC pursuing the continuation of a revised contracting limit whereby the department can enter into certain contacts without TB approval for procurements determined to be low risk and low-medium complexity.

Recommendations and management action plan conclusions

As with most new initiatives, there is an opportunity to refine processes and explore enhancements on the path forward. As such, the recommendations have been made to support continual improvements.

PSPC management has had the opportunity to review the evaluation report. It has been accepted by PSPC acquisition management and recognized as an important step in procurement modernization efforts. Acquisition management notes that the risk-based defence procurement pilot (RBDPP) has allowed PSPC, in partnership with TBS and DND, to test out a different way to approve procurements with the goal of improving administrative efficiency and service delivery. Acquisition management agrees with the findings and recommendations which will assist PSPC in further improving procurement processes and services to clients. To this end, a management action plan has been developed to address the evaluation recommendations.

Recommendation 1

It is recommended that PSPC pursue the continuation of a revised authority to approve lower-risk, low-medium complexity defence procurement contracts to better allow for the continued achievements of results in support of the Government of Canada's defence policy.

PSPC management accepts this recommendation. PSPC is working on documentation to support the request of an extension of the pilot and a possible expansion to other government departments.

As part of this work, the following actions will be taken:

Recommendation 2

It is recommended that PSPC continue to refine its risk assessment tools and guidance to ensure greater precision in:

PSPC management accepts the recommendation. The Strategic Policy Sector for Acquisitions began a comprehensive review of procurement policy risk related tools in January 2020 in order to identify areas for improvement and ensure all the gaps in procurement risk process are addressed. This review includes:

As part of this review, the following actions will be taken by management:

Recommendation 3

It is recommended that PSPC continue to identify and streamline operational practices to further enhance efficiencies in procurement.

PSPC management accepts the recommendation. PSPC is in the process of implementing an electronic procurement system to modernize procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively burdensome, and user friendly.

To this end, management will initiate implementation of a modern cloud-based electronic procurement system within PSPC.

Background

PSPC is the largest buyer of goods and services in Canada. Under the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, PSPC has the legislated mandate to provide acquisition services for federal departments and agencies. PSPC is responsible for purchasing goods and services on behalf of the Government of Canada.

With respect to defence procurements, the minister of Public Services and Procurement has the exclusive authority to acquire defence supplies and construction projects required by DND, as set out in the Defence Production Act. PSPC procurement services support the successful implementation of Canada's defence policy and position DND to better meet the needs of the CAF. Defence procurement is governed by the Defence Procurement Strategy (DPS), which includes as core members DND, PSPC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). TBS and the other central agencies are ex officio members of DPS governance.

DND is authorized to approve and enter into contractual arrangements up to 5 million dollars. PSPC's permanent authorities authorize the department to approve contracts for goods up to 40 million and services up to 20 millionFootnote 1, depending on contract type. For contracts exceeding departmental authorities, TB approval is required.

In the fall of 2018, TB approved an 18-month pilot project to amend the TB Contracting Policy to enable the minister of Public Services and Procurement (at the time being the minister of Public Services, Procurement and Accessibility) to enter into and amend contracts and contractual arrangements with lower risk and lower-medium complexity for defence procurements that exceed PSPC contracting limits.

The pilot's intent was to enable TB ministers to focus their approval on higher risk/complexity contracts and support procurement modernization efforts through streamlining DND procurements undertaken by PSPC. Improvements to the timeliness and efficiency of defence procurement processes anticipated under the pilot were expected to help the CAF get the products and services they need, when needed.

Pilot profile

The pilot leveraged existing risk assessment tools, processes and resources at PSPC, DND and TBS to review defence procurements and identify the appropriate contract approval level. Under the pilot, procurements assessed as low to medium complexity and low risk were eligible for approval by PSPC assistant deputy ministers for acquisitions. Higher risk procurements would continue to proceed with submissions to seek TB's approval.

Under the pilot, procurement requisitions sent by DND to PSPC which exceeded contracting limits were first assessed under the risk assessment approach, including the risk management matrix tool (RMMT), to identify the complexity and risk through a series of guided questions. The risk management matrix tool was modified for the purpose of the pilot through the addition of criteria to also consider whether:

Following the preparation of the above material, an early engagement meeting was arranged with stakeholders and advisory services (including legal) to discuss the procurement and confirm appropriate approval steps. The risk-based defence pilot package (RBDP package) was prepared for each procurement containing materials such as:

Upon approval by a PSPC ADM, the RBDP package was submitted to the Government Operations Sector (GOS) at TBS for review and recommendation of concurrence with the proposed approval level identified for the procurement. In an event where TBS may not concur with PSPC's assessment, an escalation protocol for the pilot identified the ADM committee within the DPS (with representatives from PSPC, TBS and DND) as the venue for further review and discussion.

For procurements identified as higher risk and complexity, PSPC would proceed with the preparation of a submission to seek approval from TB. If a recommendation of concurrence was made by TBS regarding an assessment that a procurement was lower risk and complexity, acceptance of this recommendation would be signaled by the assistant secretary for GOS-TBS. After receiving acceptance from TBS, a package would be prepared for the appropriate PSPC ADM's approval. Following ADM approval, the deputy minister and minister for PSPC would be briefed as required. Finally, the PSPC contracting authority would sign the contract and begin collecting information for monitoring, reporting and evaluation purposes.

Over the course of the pilot's 18-month period (between November 2018 and April 2020), 28 defence procurement requests were approved by the Government of Canada. Of these, 17 were approved by PSPC through the temporary delegation of authority.

The procurement leadership and procurement services programs of PSPC's Departmental Results Framework supported PSPC activities described in this report. PSPC contributed 16.6 full-time equivalent employees, representing slightly over $2.6 million in departmental spending, to support the development of the 28 defence procurement requests approved between November 2018 and April 2020.

About the evaluation

PSPC's 2019 to 2020 to 2024 to 2025 5-Year Evaluation Plan identified the pilot for evaluation starting in December 2019. An evaluation addressing the achievement of 4 objectives set for the pilot was undertaken by the PSPC Evaluation Sector with information collected from PSPC, TBS and DND stakeholders. The evaluation assessed achievements resulting from the 18-month implementation period of the pilot.

Methods

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results and Directive on Results for the Government of Canada. The PSPC Evaluation Sector applied a risk-based assessment in determining the approach and level of effort required to produce timely and objective information on the pilot's achievements.

Interviews were conducted by the PSPC Evaluation Sector in collaboration with PSPC, TBS and DND officials who had been involved in the planning and/or implementation of the pilot. 66 potential interviewees were identified, with a total of 36 interviews completed, for an overall participation rate of approximately 55%.

An online survey was administered by PSPC Evaluation Sector to cover a larger sample of individuals having been involved in approval process for the 28 procurements undertaken during the pilot period. The survey contained both closed and open-ended questions. A total of 109 individuals were invited to complete the survey, to which 61 responded (56%).

PSPC Evaluation Sector led a review of performance measurement data for relevant defence procurements, before and during the pilot. The intent was to provide a quantitative assessment of any available information related to performance indicators, particularly focusing on time and efficiency of approvals for the 28 procurements.

Additionally, PSPC Evaluation Sector staff conducted a review of operational and reporting information.

Finally, the PSPC Evaluation Sector oversaw a third-party review of the risk and risk mitigation assessments for 23 of the 28 procurements approved during the pilot period, of which 13 were lower risk procurements and 10 medium risk procurements. The file review assessed the replicability of the risk identification assessments and the application of risk mitigation measures as a proxy for determining if the pilot tools were correctly and consistently applied when identifying the necessary procurement approval levels.

Limitation and mitigation measures

The conduct of the evaluation encountered challenges which are common to this type of engagement. Any limitations identified for specific methods have been mitigated by the use of findings from multiple lines of evidence in the preparation of the evaluation's conclusions. None of the limitations encountered in the conduct of the evaluation were significant enough to prevent evaluation reporting on the 4 key objectives.

As per the PSPC evaluation plan, this engagement's conduct was initiated 13 months into the pilot's 18-month period. The information supporting the evaluation has sought to cover the entire period of the pilot; however, exceptions include the risk and risk-mitigation assessment review up to December 2019. This represented the best available information at the time the evaluation's conduct was launched, and covered 83% (23/28) of the total defence procurements approved (either by TB or PSPC) for the time period under review.

Given the fixed timeframe for the pilot's implementation, the evaluation has examined the achievement of success objectives set for the 18-month period. Given that deliveries for procurements contracted under the pilot extend as late as 2031 and can change for reasons outside of the control of the enabling department (PSPC) and the client department (DND), the full impacts of the pilot's activities may have not yet been fully realized.

Interviews
Participation was on a voluntary basis. The Evaluation Sector prioritized interviews with senior or executive officials to facilitate participation and allow for tailored questions. Interview results are more likely to reflect the opinions of decision-makers. Interview questionnaires were partially customized to the role of the interviewee. As a result, not all questions were asked of all interviewees and interviewees could not provide a response to all questions.
Survey
Participation in the survey was on a voluntary basis. The administration of the survey was targeted to officials providing operational support to the pilot. The survey included a comprehensive list of questions seeking respondent's perspectives on numerous aspects of the pilot's implementation, with some questions asked of single departments. As a result of its broad distribution, the survey encountered instances where there were high rates of respondents stating they did not know enough about the topic to provide a perspective on the issue (up to 40% of responses to some questions). Some survey respondents were also included in the interview process. It is estimated that between 12 and 32 officials from PSPC and TBS completed both a survey and an interview.
Operational and reporting information
Documents and data obtained from the program were reviewed. The evaluation was unable to collect data to conclude on certain evaluation indicators, due to both lack of available information as well as the need to further refine indicators used in the assessment. Of note, there was a lack of extensive pre-pilot information to support comparisons against earlier performance. Additionally, due to operational constraints resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation team was unable to complete a media review and departmental correspondence review. Where information was not available, other lines of evidence were used to the extent possible to inform findings.
Risk and risk mitigation review
The review's findings were provided in aggregate on both TB and PSPC approved procurements.

The third-party review was completed on final documents included in the RBDP package. All materials created, consulted or referenced in the preparation of final risk assessments could not be included in the review due to cost and timeliness considerations. However, the evaluation team determined that the sample size was sufficient to support an analysis of the tools and their application to draw conclusions.

The reviewer provided a best judgement assessment based on the materials received. The reviewer noted that any significant differences or inconsistencies in assessments were largely due to limited contextual information and understanding of the risk and risk mitigation exercises conducted for each file. Noting these limitations, the third party made relevant enquiries to seek clarification where necessary and is of the opinion that their findings remain valid.

Objective 1

Approval levels for defence procurements undertaken by PSPC are appropriately identified based on an assessment of risk.

Conclusion: While there is potential to refine PSPC tools and their application, the approval levels for defence procurements undertaken by PSPC were appropriately identified as lower-risk.

Approval levels for defence procurements undertaken during the pilot period by both PSPC and TB were supported by the risk management tools and processes prepared by PSPC officials. PSPC was responsible for assessing risk complexity and level as well as preparing the RBDP package for TBS analysts, who were responsible for reviewing the materials and making recommendations on concurrence with the risk assessments.

Materials (to support a risk-based assessment of approval level necessary for a procurement) were developed within PSPC with support from procurement officers, contracting authorities, the Risk Management Insurance Advisory Services and the Procurement Business Management Sector Centre of Excellence. Extensive in-person discussions were held by PSPC officials for each procurement file. These discussions were meant to be exhaustive in nature, and in the end they informed the identification of approval levels for each procurement.

The type and quantity of procurements included in the pilot were dependent upon DND's requisition schedule during the 18-month period, which reflected their need for goods and services. For the 28 procurement requests approved between November 2018 and April 2020, 17 were identified as lower risk and thus were included in the pilot. No procurements were approved under the pilot that exceeded the low risk and low to medium complexity threshold. Of the 11 procurements requiring TB approval, 10 were identified as medium risk and 1 as high risk. Altogether, PSPC approved 4 competitive contracts, 10 non-competitive contracts and 3 contract amendments. TB approved 5 competitive contracts, 2 non-competitive contracts and 7 contract amendmentsFootnote 2.

The distribution of lower and higher risk procurements indicates that a similar number of lower risk procurements were sought by DND before and during the pilot, while a greater number of total and higher risk procurements were undertaken during the pre-pilot period, as noted in Defence procurement risk levels, before and during the pilot period. Of note, an election was held in the fall of 2019 which may have impacted the overall volume of procurement contracts for the pilot period.

Defence procurement risk levels, before and during the pilot period

Table 1: Procurement risk levels
Risk level assessed against pilot criteria Pre-pilot: January 2017 to November 2018 Pilot: November 2018 to April 2020
Lower risk 9 17
Possibly lower risk 4 Not applicable
Subtotal 13 17
Medium and high risk 20 11
Total 33 28

For the 17 lower-risk procurements approved by PSPC under the pilot, the escalation protocol was not invoked. Additionally, TBS had retained the right to request a TB submission at any time during the risk identification and approval process for a procurement; however, no such request was made. The evaluation, through a combination of interviews and document review findings, was unable to identify a specific lower risk procurement which should have been approved by TB. The evaluation did not find evidence to date of harm to the Government of Canada attributable to procurements approved through the pilot process, but notes (as did some respondents) that it may still be too early for some risks to potentially manifest as issues.

Stakeholder opinions vary on the effectiveness of the tools and their use in determining the risk-based approval levels. Tools included all the components of the RBDP package, which was developed and refined over the course of the pilot. Among all survey respondents, 64% describe these tools as 'effective' or 'very effective'; 15% 'moderately effective' and 21% did not know enough about the tools to offer an opinion.

PSPC interviewees (18/23) often described the risk assessment tools as effective at drawing appropriate conclusions on risk. Among PSPC interviewees, there was an understanding that the tools could be improved with 10 of 17 officials noting minor limitations to the tools and their applications which were generally overcome through the support and guidance of senior team members. While responding officials did not identify a specific tool or procurement assessment as deficient, it was noted that there had been issues in ensuring consistency and clarity in the risk information as assessments were developed, as well as in ensuring that the assessments included risks relevant to the type of procurement proposed.

Notably, almost all interviewees from across the 3 departments agreed that the criteria (as described in the pilot profile) were instrumental in the ability of PSPC to approve the included projects under the pilot without a TB submission. PSPC interviewees described these criteria as important, in the aggregate, to the assessments of procurements which could be approved by their department although 3 interviewees questioned the value of criteria linked to DND's investment plan.

Almost all PSPC interviewees believed that final versions of the early engagement briefing note provided sufficient, accurate and important contextual information. PSPC interviewees noted that the ADM checklist was valued for providing ADMs with assurance that agreed upon processes were being followed, and that due diligence was being exercised in the procurement risk assessments.

A third-party reviewer was engaged by PSPC's Evaluation Sector to replicate the project complexity and project risk assessment process and compared the results as a means of assessing the reliability of the tools and their application. For the 23 procurements reviewed by the third-party, the reviewer was provided with the complexity assessment tool, the risk and response matrix, and the risk management matrix tool. Materials reviewed had received TBS concurrence on the risk-assessment and an indication on whether the procurement would be approved by PSPC or TB.

Overall, the reviewer produced risk assessments similar to those determined by PSPC, while noting areas where the tools and their application could be strengthened going forward.

The reviewer identified the same risks for the procurement as identified in the assessment materials. In some cases, the third party reviewer considered the possibility of other risks.

Significant similarity in the identification of risk likelihood was noted for most files (17/23). For files where there were notable differences in the assessment, the third-party assessed the inherent risk likelihood level as potentially higher than had PSPC specialists. It was noted by the third party reviewer that for 64% (56/87) of the identified risks, initial and residual risk had been assessed at same level in the reviewed materials.

In the cases of similarly identified risk, there was also significant similarity in assessments of where inherent risk could be reduced to a tolerable risk level (19/23) and in the identification of residual risk levels (18/23). Overall, the reviewer agreed with the risk mitigation strategies proposed by PSPC.

As is the case with a file review, there are limitations to the information that can be provided using official documents. In fact, the identification of risk level and complexity for defence procurements were also supported by training and guidance used by procurement and risk officers at PSPC which spanned a range of policies, mechanisms and agreements governing the functions. As such, the reviewer was provided the opportunity to discuss differences in assessments with the PSPC staff to reconcile initial differences in assessments. For example, with regards to the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) replenishment file, the reviewer initially assessed the complexity of the file to be high due to the requirement of ISED policy change. However, after conducting an interview with the procurement officer, it was understood that the procurement fell under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program, which simplifies the procurement process as it helps meet niche requirements that industry would not be able to provide. With this added context, the reviewer agreed with PSPC's complexity assessment of medium.

Based on these discussions, the reviewer noted that any significant differences in findings were largely the result of limited contextual information on their part. The review highlighted elements of long-standing, pre-pilot processes where PSPC could add additional clarification and support in the aim of consistent, comprehensive risk assessments going forward.

The reviewer recommended that PSPC revise risk tools to more clearly delineate between inherent and residual risk, and provide guidance and support to those completing the tools on this issue. Additionally, the reviewer noted a need to bring focus to the relevant risk type for the assessment exercise, as they noted that in some cases the risks identified were regarding the potential performance of the good or service after a contract is awarded rather than a risk to the Crown in proceeding with the procurement.

In consideration of the above findings, it is recommended that PSPC continue to refine its risk assessment tools and guidance to ensure greater precision by:

Objective 2

Administrative processes are streamlined and lead to faster approvals for a large number of PSPC defence procurements.

Conclusion: PSPC service standards for the pilot have been met overall resulting in expedited timelines for key activities. The pilot has supported faster approvals for defence procurements with the potential for further efficiency.

The pilot oversaw the implementation of 2 approval streams for PSPC defence procurements intended to streamline administrative processes and lead to faster approvals for a larger number of PSPC defence procurements.

The evaluation was able to reproduce the assessments completed by the pilot authority as part of its regular performance measurement reporting to confirm that administrative service standards were generally met and, as a result, the pilot contributed to more and faster defence procurements.

During November 2018 to December 2019, 21 procurements were approved representing an increase of 10.5% from the 19 approved during November 2017 to October 2018. The pilot authority noted that 6 of the 21 procurements would have been delayed until spring 2020 without the pilot due to the federal election that took place in fall 2019. As a result, the pilot supported a decrease in items seeking approval in the TB session following the election period and positioned DND to receive necessary goods and services sooner. PSPC did not have an occasion over the course of the pilot's implementation to assess whether the drafting and approval process for a TB submission could be streamlined to meet a specific contract award date.

Overall, PSPC stakeholders consulted for the evaluation supported the view that the pilot had resulted in faster approvals for defence procurements, with some PSPC respondents remarking that it was achieved by an increased workload during the preparation of each RBDPP package. The majority of PSPC interviewees (15/23) believed that the efficiency in the approval of defence procurements had increased as a result of the pilot's introduction. For those PSPC interviewees (6/23) who believed that the administrative burden at PSPC had increased, they identified specific functions such as risk assessment and data collection as having encountered increased obligations. Others noted that administrative burden had increased at the start of the pilot due to the need to fine tune administrative processes and to train staff. Finally, it was noted that risk tools, such as the RMMT, were adapted from tools usually reserved for internal PSPC use only. As a result, their adaptation for external use resulted in more time and effort being required to complete them. However, the tools were useful in communicating risk information to non-procurement staff.

Open commentary among the 33 PSPC survey respondents held a general consensus that the changes in process introduced over the course of the pilot increased the level of effort required to prepare the materials underpinning decisions regarding the approval of procurements (especially during the early stages of the pilot's implementation) but significantly reduced time required for contracts to be approved. Overall, of the 17 PSPC interviewees expressing a view, 15 believed that the benefits of the pilot had outweighed the cost of its implementation.

While time and effort inputs varied for different PSPC contributors, the evaluation found overall time savings under the pilot approach. From beginning to end of procurement processes for lower risk procurements, an average of 8 business days and median of 2 business days were saved compared to when approvals were sought via a TB submission. The average and median turnaround times from early engagement (EE) meeting to PSPC ADM approval following TBS concurrence were approximately105 and 107 business days, respectively for 15 of 17 PSPC approved procurements between November 2018 and April 2020. Meanwhile, for low risk pre-pilot procurements between November 2017 and November 2018, the average and median turnaround times from EE meeting to TB approval were approximately 113 and approximately 109 business days, respectively. The evaluation notes that the total time required to bring a contract to approval includes necessary steps for completion that are not directly within the control of the pilot authority such as security clearances or receipt of letters of authorization for certain procurements. These results strengthen the conclusions discussed under Objective 4, as a notable example of how PSPC has been able to support DND in delivering on overall SSE project timelines.

In consideration of the above findings, it is recommended that PSPC continue to identify and streamline operational practices to further enhance efficiencies in procurement.

Objective 3

TB is able to focus its approval on higher-level contracts

Conclusion: PSPC approval of lower risk procurements meant that TBS had more time and resources to focus on higher risk/complexity projects were on the TB agenda. Continued improvements by PSPC to the usefulness and completeness of its information products provided to TBS would help maximize efficient delivery on Canada's defence policy

During the pilot period, TBS was provided with information to support decision-making on 11 higher and 17 lower risk procurements. In order to fully realise the benefit of the delegation of defence procurement approvals, TBS needs complete and appropriate information to support their review and concurrence with proposed approval levels for defence procurements. It is important that TBS officials receive full briefings for both TB submissions and RBDP packages early on so that review time dedicated to a procurement can be minimized and the number of clarification requests reduced. By reducing follow-up requests, the time savings could be used in the consideration of higher risk procurements.

While about 75% of PSPC survey participants believed the RBDP package provided sufficient information about an intended procurement, TBS stakeholders were less likely to believe that the RBDP package contained sufficient information. Two-thirds of TBS survey participants were of the opinion that the materials received for their review from PSPC were initially insufficient to provide them with a full understanding of the context and details of an intended procurement.

TBS interviewees noted that, particularly at the start of the pilot, additional information was needed to support a recommendation on concurrence. In particular, there was a need to expand on the information contained in the early engagement briefing note. Interviewees noted the following areas for improvement for PSPC:

Documentation reviewed during the evaluation found that PSPC worked with TBS and other stakeholders to address concerns on the completeness and appropriateness of the RBDP package components, culminating in a June 2019 action plan.

Five TBS interviewees believed the pilot improved the efficiency of the approval process and 3 TBS interviewees noted that the pilot freed up time and resources at TBS to focus on higher-risk procurements. Time savings were found in reduced requirements to consult with internal TBS policy centres. Additionally, TBS officials noted that reduced staff time to prepare for ministerial briefings and reduced time spent by TB ministers to review/approve low-risk procurements was a primary factor contributing to time or effort savings.

Program performance information shows that the time required for obtaining TBS concurrence is significantly less than the time required to seek TB approval of a submission. Receipt of TBS concurrence on lower risk procurements was 100 (average) and 57 (median) business days faster than the time required for procurements to obtain TB approval higher risk procurements approved through submissions (based on data available for 9 of the 11 lower-risk procurements approved by PSPC). These results support TBS officials' perception that reduced staff time was experienced on defence procurements during the pilot.

Objective 4

The implementation of SSE is supported and the needs of CAF are better met.

Conclusion: The pilot has supported the implementation of SSE through expedited contracting, demonstrating PSPC's capacity to support an increase in the number and type of procurements approved in-house. DND believes that CAF needs have been met through the pilot and would continue to be better met through the continuation of PSPC approval of lower-risk and lower-medium complexity defence procurements.

SSE is Canada's defence policy, providing direction on defence priorities over a 20-year horizon. Introduced in 2016 to 2017, the SSE supports the enhancement of CAF capabilities and capacity. DND's budget in support of the SSE was set to increase by 73% from $18.9 billion in 2016 to 2017 to $32.7 billion by 2026 to 2027. The implementation of the SSE is supported by the Defence Investment Plan annual updates.

As the enabling department, PSPC was responsible for completing the necessary activities to facilitate procurements which support the SSE and ensure that the needs of the CAF are better met. The pilot process allowed for procurement timelines to be streamlined where urgent approval was needed, including in cases where, had the regular TB process been followed, contract extensions or other bridging mechanisms would have been employed.

The lower-risk defence procurements approved by PSPC include multiple deliverables over a timeframe stretching as far as 2031, with changes to timeframes for receipt of deliverables always a possibility due to factors outside of the control of the enabling (PSPC) and client (DND) department. The evaluation team was able to collect deliverable information for 13 of the 17 procurements approved by PSPC, and was able to identify 41 distinct deliverables in total. For the period of November 2018 through May 2020, the evaluation found that 12 of the 41 deliverables had been received by DND (approximately 29%), and had arrived on time or ahead of schedule.

The evaluation found that there have been significant tangible impacts from the pilot's implementation enabling DND to get the goods and services they need, when they need them.

Faster issuance of contracts

The award of a contract in April 2020 for the delivery of upgraded communication direction finding systems to the Halifax class ships for the Royal Canadian Navy would not have been realized in this timeframe without the pilot. The capability delivered is expected to greatly enhance the ship's overall situational awareness capability.

The pilot facilitated a contract award more than 5 months ahead of schedule to support the continued provision of essential ongoing support services to the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre in Meaford Ontario.

Through the pilot, a contract was put in place in less than 10 months for the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) replenishment. This contract will ensure that Canada is able to replenish medium range missiles in support of the CF-188 fleets and support North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commitments.

The pilot enabled a contract to be put in place in under 6 months so that Canada will be able to replace existing, obsolete transponder units on time to meet its NATO and NORAD commitments.

Service continuity

Contract amendments undertaken through the pilot supported the continuation of services without interruption for the naval engineering test establishment-2 contract. This amendment enabled maintenance of the critical engineering and test establishment's support through to 2022. Additionally, when the engineering, logistics, and management support to the Royal Canadian Navy ended, this initiative enabled the approval of a new contract that resulted in no gap to service delivery. Also, enabling the timely award of a Jeppesen (Boeing subsidiary) contract needed to ensure no gap in critical service of the electronic flight bags allowing Royal Canadian Airforce pilots to land aircraft at various locations worldwide.

Quicker deliverables

An amendment secured for the acquisition and installation of weapon effect simulation equipment for 4 urban operations training systems at Canadian Forces bases across Canada. This training system ensures that troops are trained for combat in urban settings. Deliverables began to be received almost immediately after the amendment was issued.

The pilot accelerated this procurement's delivery schedule by at least 2 months, allowing the Royal Military College to maintain the critical path for refuelling of the Slowpoke nuclear fuel replacement by December 2021 before fuel levels are expected to be depleted.

In addition to the above examples, a DND representative estimated that the RBDP approach may have helped reduce certain DND procurement timelines by as much as a year by allowing the focus to be on larger and riskier ventures such as the procurement of aircraft. This was noted as a key success story in fulfilling the mandate to deliver equipment in a timely manner.

DND stakeholders value the benefits to their organization and objectives enabled by the pilot. All DND respondents and most (80%) DND survey respondents reported a positive impact on their organization's ability to achieve SSE as a result of the pilot's implementation. Additionally, all DND respondents and most DND survey respondents (70%) believe that the pilot had a positive impact on their organization's ability to more quickly meet the objectives and operational goals for the CAF.

90% of DND survey respondents and the 4 DND interviewees were satisfied with the performance of this pilot. All 4 DND interviewees said they are very satisfied with the process, with 1 individual citing the shorter timelines for approval.

All DND interviewees believed that the approach should continue. One DND respondent projected that the organization is able to meet SSE targets 5 times faster than it would have normally required under the traditional approach to contract approvals. Three of 4 DND interviewees cited procurement challenges such as the large volume of projects, the need for quicker decision-making and expedited processes as areas that could benefit from the continuation of delegated approvals to PSPC for lower-risk procurements.

In consideration of the above findings, it is recommended PSPC pursue the continuation of a revised authority to approve low-risk, low-medium complexity defence procurement contracts to better allow for the continued achievements of results in support of the Government of Canada's defence policy.

Final conclusions

With the growing need to streamline processes and find efficiencies while serving Canadian interests and being accountable for expenditures, it is essential to continue to find new ways to equip service providers and partners to enable the successful implementation of projects and serve Canadians.

The pilot has demonstrated a viable alternative which in general is viewed as effective by stakeholders. The pilot has demonstrated a proof of concept and promising early results, which could be strengthened by further refining tools and processes. Results achieved by the pilot suggest there is merit to consideration of its continuation, and would serve to help inform discussions surrounding the possibility of further changes in authority delegation.

Date modified: