Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

On the vertical side.

[Daphne Meredith]

On the vertical are actual things that we're doing, things that we have in place, and we're mapping it against what we consider to be a robust management framework.

We have, in a sense, an easy mapping of those elements to a construct that the Auditor General referred to earlier, which is called the management accountability framework, something the Treasury Board Secretariat uses to look at the departmental management.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, we're going to move on. Thank you very much, Ms. Ratansi and Ms. Meredith.

Mr. Young, five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Monsieur Guimont, thank you for being here today.

I think that at 14,000 FTEs, if you were a company, you would be one of the biggest companies in Canada. So I'm looking at the numbers here. You have 9% attrition a year; 60,000 contracts a year, I'm told; and so 5% to 6% without full compliance--I think it's a tiny differential. I think congratulations are in order, because there's always an element of human error. In response to Mr. Christopherson's question, there's always going to be an element of human error when people work long hours and are multi-tasking, etc. I'm also cheered that no problem was pervasive, which indicates error as opposed to systematic issues.

But I've been in business over 30 years. I've been on the other side applying to MERX and helping clients apply to MERX, and some businesses, I think you must know, find it a little bit onerous, a little difficult to get through, and they just give up. You'll get better quotations and more competitive bids if more businesses apply, obviously. And I should say I suspect that's why the body shops exist, because they specialize in knowing how to fill out the applications and do business with government.

Is there a way that you're able to help new applicants get through this RFP process without giving out your standards?

[François Guimont]

Yes.

Before I answer this, I'll say that one day, because I heard about MERX, I said, “Can I have a demo, see what it looks like on the screen?” I had a demo, and frankly, I thought it worked pretty well. But it's a site that has a fair amount of information, and you have to file in the information. And all of a sudden, where I am, with the capacity I have, I tried to transpose myself into an SME, small or medium-sized enterprise, where you have five people and you have your screen, and all of a sudden I said, “Okay, I can see myself in it, because it's a good tool, frankly, and operates well, but are there improvements that can be made?”

We had discussions. My understanding is that there had been what we call instalments done by the company operating MERX with a view to simplifying or helping. So again, they are also in continuous improvement within the realm of what the contracts allow us to do, and that's been done through the input that we get through the so-called OSME office, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises. So that's the way we're kind of operating, but—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Do your people who work with you or for you ever call small businesses and say, “How are you finding the process?" or “Have you ever tried the process, and if not, why not?”

[François Guimont]

Yes, we do that, and it's quite impressive. As Madam Meredith said, we have regional offices, we have the central office of OSME, and the number of phone calls this small core of people dealing with OSME—they're like the face of Public Works, the government, vis-à-vis the small and medium-sized enterprises—it's in the thousands of phone calls. And I just use “the number” or “phone calls” to imply there is a dialogue: how can I do this, what can I do? So there's a fair amount of interaction.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

The second question I'd like to ask concerns the RFP process. There are sometimes perfectly legitimate reasons in an RFP process where, as soon as the contract is awarded, the needs of the organization change, and you have to be fair to those who participate in the process. But at the same time, you have to leave a little flexibility in to change the terms and perhaps even the value of the contract. The Attorney General has said they're concerned about this.

Is there any flexibility built in to meet the needs of the organization, to get a better value when the needs change?

[François Guimont]

That's a good question, Mr. Chairman, and the answer falls into two areas.

The first one—frankly, Madam Fraser and her team picked it up—is that good planning should allow you to try to think ahead as much as possible when you put your contract in place, so you have the right headings as well as the right threshold money-wise. You should be in the ball park. What it means is, frankly, when your contract is fresh you should be able to be in business for a while.

All things are not perfect, so I go to my second point, which is the point you're making. By the same token, amendments to a contract, both in terms of threshold and the areas covered, are a possibility. But there is a very fine equilibrium between doing it within the parameters of what is considered to be the core of the contract—quantum and direction, I'll code it like that—versus tipping to the other side, where you're essentially creating a new contract, where you are essentially preventing other people from bidding because you have now morphed the contract into something bigger or more expensive, and there is no threshold to that. This is a combination of common sense and legal advice, and we do it. I'm quite comfortable with it, and it's a call you make every time.

But I would like to think that one should always, as much as possible, get things right at the start, with a bit more thinking and planning, and make the adjustments as opposed to the other way around, which is to go fast and make a lot of adjustments. I don't think that is the right combination.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Madame Faille, deux minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

We talked about strategies for delivering shared computer services. In response to a question from my colleague, you answered that you were transforming the management of federal office building maintenance contracts. Does that also apply to IT services?

When you have to manage the challenge of resource attrition as a result of employee departures, do you automatically turn to the industry?

[François Guimont]

No, not automatically. Within the department, I have a standard IT services management function. Public Works and Government Services has its own systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead.

[François Guimont]

One of the responsibilities of the chief information officer, or CIO, is to manage our IT needs. He is also responsible for shared services options. Here are a few places that we're exploring: Data centres, Networks, the networks you mentioned, and Desktop management, desktop computers. These are some examples.

Is it possible to manage these networks and information centres and desktop computer purchases differently? That always has to be based on a business case. We can't simply say that it's a good idea and that we should do it. I wait for the business case that shows whether it's reasonable to do it. At that point, we'll issue a proper request for proposals. From the outset, a business case always has to support the proposed direction.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I have a departmental document. Do your deadlines still stand?

[François Guimont]

I don't have that document, Mr. Chairman. I would say that, in the case of networks, the deadline for getting the business case was the end of March. We're nearly at the end of March, and I haven't had any news from my manager on that matter. We'll be dealing with that in the coming weeks. We'll be completing it shortly.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You'll submit it to us as soon as you have it?

[François Guimont]

As I previously mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Faille.

I have one quick question for Mr. Guimont. Is everything running smoothly with your internal audit and will you be compliant next Wednesday on the regulations?

[François Guimont]

Do you mean having external members in place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes.

[François Guimont]

Yes, I am compliant. I am chairing that committee. I have three external members.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I only want to clarify something so that I'm not misleading the committee. The procurement ombudsman annual report will be tabled by September 2009. I had said June, but it's September, after the summer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to thank you very much on behalf of the committee. I want to thank everyone for being here today.

Before we ask for concluding remarks, I want to point out to the committee members that on Thursday of this week, at 3:30 p.m., we will have the auditor back before us. We're dealing with governance of small federal entities.

I also want to point out to the committee that we have the materials prepared by the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation on federal audit committees or all audit committees. That will be circulated to you later this week. I urge you to read them. They're great materials and will help you in your roles and duties as members.

Having said those comments, I'm going to ask Ms. Fraser if she has any concluding comments.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you and the members of the committee for your interest in this audit. We are pleased that the results were generally favourable, certainly as to contract awards, and that the department, in particular Mr. Guimont, has taken our recommendations very seriously and has put in place an action plan to deal with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Guimont, do you have any final comments you want to make to the committee?