Government Operations Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We would like to commence.

As you know, the first hour, from 3:30 to 4:30, we will be studying the large IT projects. We have before us, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Madam Charette, the chief information officer, and Valerie Wutti, the executive director. And from Public Works we have Mr. John Rath-Wilson and Christine Payant.

I understand, Ms. Charette, that you have opening remarks. So we will start off with you.

[Corinne Charette, Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting us again to appear before your committee. With me again today is Ms. Wutti.

Following our appearance on October 20, we provided the committee with information on three items regarding large IT projects in the government, including the parameters used to define a large IT project; an explanation of the process to be followed for IT projects that require Treasury Board approval, including the Secretariat's challenge and oversight functions; and a copy of the business case template and guidelines we ask institutions to use in defining a project. In addition, we were pleased to provide other tools that have been developed to strengthen project management and oversight of IT projects along with the costs incurred in developing these tools.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight the materials and comment on each one.

First, in the parameters used to define large IT projects, it is important to note that the government does not categorize IT projects by size. This classification was recommended by the Office of the Auditor General in the context of chapter 3 of her November 2006 report. However, according to Treasury Board policy on the management of major crown projects, a project is considered to be a major crown project when its estimated cost will exceed $100 million and the project is assessed as high risk.

Thus, the following parameters would be considered in defining a large IT project: projects that are $100 million or over; in addition to that, projects with multi-stakeholder governance and/or delivery that spans more than one department; projects of significant complexity and risk, and these may be under $100 million but still present significant complexity and risk; and projects with significant public, policy, and/or national interests.

The other materials included in the package are the “Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions” which assists departments in preparing their Treasury Board submissions.

It also includes the “Business Case Guide and Template”, which helps departments to summarize valuable solution options which have been considered and retained and which develop strong business cases or a specific project or program. Business cases help to link proposed investments with the strategic outcomes of the department.

The package also contains the “Project Charter”, which is an agreement between the project's sponsor and the project manager that formally authorizes the existence of a project, and provides the project manager with the authority to apply resources to project activities. We have developed a guide and a template to help the partners create their project charters.

We've also provided an example of the executive dashboard. A dashboard is a concise visual representation of key project indicators, including cost, schedule, risk, and changes in issues that will assist executives and sponsors in understanding their projects and having regular dialogues to monitor the status of these with their project managers.

The supporting executive dashboard guide helps departments create these dashboards.

There is the independent reviewers handbook, which is an instruction manual for independent reviewers to use when conducting independent reviews of projects.

There is a ”Review Topics of Inquiry” document, which is a framework that covers the types of things that independent reviewers should look for when conducting an independent review.

Through these guidance documents and tools, the Treasury Board Secretariat continues to work closely with departments in providing the advice they need to make sound management decisions regarding their IT projects. Departments are aware of the IT project management guidance and tools that are available—this is reinforced regularly through meetings with the community of chief information officers.

Whether to adopt these or adapt other leading practices remains a departmental decision. Project management and oversight processes are described in the Policy on the Management of Projects for which implementation roll out to government departments is currently planned to continue until 2011. However, we are very pleased to see that departments are already taking action in applying these tools and guidelines.

Madam Chair, thank you.

These are our initial comments. We would be very pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Madame Bourgeois, before I let you speak, we had requested guidelines from the Treasury Board on how they do the parameters, etc. Yesterday afternoon the clerk received this binder and then sent out notices. As you can see, this is a huge binder; it will take some time to read. So just for your information, this is the binder that came.

Madame Bourgeois, you are the first to go.

[A voice]

There were two binders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

There were two binders. Sorry, the second binder has a guide for preparing Treasury Board submissions.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To be clear, the documents you have beside you are those referred to in madam's presentation, is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, thank you.

Since there are no opening remarks from Mr. Rath-Wilson, we will start with our round of questions.

Madame Hall Findlay, you have eight minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, everyone, for being here this afternoon.

We've been looking at this issue for a very long time, and we've had a number of questions over a number of months about the business case, the business rationale. I'm not sure exactly what's in this binder, not having had much time to actually have a look at it. But what I'd like to have a sense of now is timeframes. We've been asking questions for quite a long time. We've had some answers and I think we're moving along in the right direction. But I'm still unclear in my mind where the GENS project is, how it is moving forward, and on what basis.

I usually like to have tighter questions, but I want to leave that open. Where are we in this whole project, and what are we looking at as timeframes?

I'll leave it open to whoever feels most....

[John Rath-Wilson, Chief Operating Officer, Information Technology Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that question.

As you may be aware, we've testified before this committee in the past as to the process of consultation that has been undertaken as part of the GENS project. And we have recently gathered information from a draft statement of solicitation of interest to qualify for this particular procurement vehicle.

We are at this moment finalizing the review of the feedback we received from that draft solicitation. And within the next two months, I would think, we will be in a position to actually post this solicitation formally on the street. So that's the timeframe we're talking about. Between now and the end of January, we expect to have our solicitation on the street for the GENS initiative.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madame Charette.

[Corinne Charette]

Let me just add to that, Madam Hall Findlay.

First, GENS is not a project. It is really a supply arrangement that will result in a number of projects going forward.

Today there are 124—and correct me, John, if I'm wrong—telecommunications networks in use by the federal government, through that many and more independent contracts. Many of these are very old and are at end of life. And there are more modern and cost-effective capabilities available in the marketplace.

So GENS, as it is articulated, is a supply arrangement looking to come up with vendors that qualify to be used by departments and agencies to renew the telecommunications services they are already running.

Once the procurement process is complete—and in fact in parallel with that—initial departments and agencies that plan to renew their telecommunications facilities and services are building their specific business cases. And they would use our business case template to say this is what they're doing today and why, what programs and services their networks are supporting in this department or agency, this is why they believe they need to renew these, and given the results of the procurement process and the costs that will come back, here is the relative comparison of today, tomorrow, transition, and so on. So they'll be able to finalize their business cases.

And then, if they have the authority within their department to proceed, they could call up against that procurement arrangement and immediately initiate a project to transition from their existing networks to the new, using the new supply arrangements.

If the project within their department were to exceed their individual departmental authority, depending on the amount of money in question, then they would come to the board with a request, an EPA for the approval to proceed on that migration or transition project.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

To the extent that you have these expressions, that you have sent this out now and expect this process over the next couple of months, the other thing at issue has been the whole question of using only large players to actually coordinate all these various 124 networks now. Can you just give a summary of what you have now sent out on that basis? Is it really just to a few large players? What kind of feedback are you getting, and if we have enough time, is the business case that you're asking from each department that they're then going to be dependent on the procurement commitments made at that higher level?

[John Rath-Wilson]

At the moment, the process is still in a pre-release stage. We haven't issued the solicitation of interest at this point. That will be happening in the course of the next eight or ten weeks. To address your issue around whether other departments will be specifically using the large integrators or suppliers or not, in fact it will be a mix. There will be opportunities within these contracts that are eventually put in place for small and medium-sized enterprises to play.

The professional services component will be available through TBIPS—that is, task-based informatics professional services—but as we discussed in the past, the ability to put in place an infrastructure for telecommunications that is required by the Government of Canada is a national requirement, and the small and medium-sized enterprises are not in a position to provide that infrastructure. So there will be a place for both elements—the large companies as well as the small companies—to play, but the main infrastructure elements will most likely be provided through this process by a larger company.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You haven't sent out the solicitation of interest, but to whom will that solicitation be sent?

[John Rath-Wilson]

It will be posted on MERX.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

So it will be just to anybody.

You don't have specific criteria—obviously you will have some—but ballpark, how many entities do you expect would respond to that solicitation?

[John Rath-Wilson]

It's difficult for us to know, but in our draft SOIQ that was published recently, I believe we had 11 companies—Is that correct, Christine?—that actually requested it and expressed an interest and from whom we've received comments. We're reviewing and studying those comments now to put in place the final one that we'd like to issue.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

When you say it is a national requirement and therefore the smaller players will not be able to satisfy that, I'm assuming, though, there is an understanding that the smaller players can participate either jointly or with some of the larger players to satisfy those requirements.

[John Rath-Wilson]

Indeed, and we're hoping we'll see combination teams put together that will satisfy the requirements for professional services through small and medium-sized enterprises but also the larger elements from one of the bigger companies.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, gentlemen, good afternoon.

If I understood the answers you gave my colleague correctly, the business case will be made by each of the departments. Is that right?

[Corinne Charette]

Yes.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Each department will decide and demonstrate through its own analysis that it is good business.

[Corinne Charette]

Yes, but I would add one nuance. It is possible that two departments in the same building could decide to have a single project, essentially because they are co-tenants. In that case, it could be an analysis for two departments.