Evidence of meeting #98 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Is there a document that clarifies the link between the needs described in the statement of work and the solution proposed by Deloitte? Was it signed?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Are you going to give me back the time, Madam Chair? Thank you.
Is there a document that clarifies the link between the needs set out in the statement of work and the solution proposed by Deloitte?
4:15 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
There are multiple documents that would link back to that. There are over 600 different design documents. There is a requirements traceability matrix. There are multiple documents that would—
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Were all those documents signed by both parties?
4:15 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
Not all of them require a signature by both parties, but those that do....
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Were the detailed functional technical requirements documents drafted in their final form before they were sent to the agency, or were you the one who originally provided the first drafts?
4:15 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
No. The way things work, in terms of these large, complex projects, is that we work together. Deloitte brings the tools and methodologies on how to do a design document. Our client—in this case, the CBSA—works at completing the document with requirements. We work with them to make sure they are technically possible, then work through what the technical solution would look like.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Which program, department or sector of the agency did you receive feedback from regarding the requirements documents?
4:15 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
It would be from so many different ones. As you can imagine, with 600 different design documents, multiple departments and multiple parts of the agency would comment.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Were you in constant communication with the agency during the development of the solution, when you were developing your proposal, to ensure that the business needs were met by the solution you had prepared?
4:20 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
They were part of the build. They were part of the design, yes, and then part of the testing, obviously.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Based on your understanding of the contract, were all the business needs included in the statement of work supposed to be met? Was that a contractual obligation?
4:20 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
What I will say is that in the 30 years that I've been doing this, the requirements on the front end in terms of what is proposed in the RFP rarely become the requirements that are signed off on at the end. Business evolves, especially over six years.
I would say that they would be met and enhanced and changed as business evolved over the course of the program.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
All of this is to the agency's stated, official satisfaction. Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Can Deloitte bill for additional amounts to build modules or functions, in short, to meet the needs that were in the contract, but with which the agency was not satisfied?
4:20 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
In terms of what we would do in those particular instances, we would continue to work through with the agency to make sure they get to the point where they get to the requirements they would like.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We heard from the agency's senior vice-president at our last meeting—I imagine you tuned in to follow the proceedings. He said it would be possible to go back. A number of contingency plans covered a number of scenarios. However, we had read and heard, particularly from certain stakeholders—and we heard it again today—that it was more of a hardline approach, meaning move forward and never go back. This is what was proposed for the implementation of CARM. All access to the existing system and processes will be cut off when CARM is launched in May 2024.
Can you shed some light on that? We've heard differing views. Which is it?
4:20 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
There are two components to cutover. We heard earlier about the cutover period of 10 to 16 days. That component we have actually been rehearsing. We're doing our sixth rehearsal of that component right now, to make sure we have it right, to mitigate any risk when we actually go live, and to try to make sure nothing happens that would require us to go back.
Having done this six times, we have never had a situation where we've had to roll it back in that particular instance.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You never had to do it, but are there still scenarios that would make it possible to go back if necessary?
4:20 p.m.
Partner, Deloitte
There are always rollback plans in terms of being able to turn back, where we have.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you to all of you for being here.
I think I'll start with you, Ms. Jalbert. You mentioned that one of your recommendations was to make the use of this digital tool optional. I assume that you meant permanently, or was that just until things got figured out? I'm just looking for clarification there.
