Evidence of meeting #44 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was suppliers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
What it says to me that we have to look at the application of the tools, because, really, something is wrong in the way the thing is working out.
Mr. Martin, keep in mind that between fully competitive and ACANs, you do have limited tendering. Limited tendering is when you go out and invite three or more proposals. When you do that, your limits are much lower than what an ACAN limit is now. So you leapfrog the limited tendering rules, and you've gone into full competitive authorities.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You see, this ACAN thing, I think, has flown under the radar, because most of us thought we were dealing with contracts of $100,000 or less. There was some concern, but you're telling me now that you can have contracts of $2 million to $40 million—
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
That's Public Works' authority. But if you're doing the limited tendering or the traditional tendering, it would be $10 million. If you go out, do a market test, and do ACAN, it can be $40 million—
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Now we have very big contracts given away, then, on sole-source situations under a very flimsy survey to see if.... So how do we know we're getting the best possible value if we don't have a fair competition and three or more contractors bidding on it?
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Madam Chair, if I may answer that last question, I don't think you should assume automatically that every ACAN is a bad contract. I don't think you should assume automatically that just because you're going the ACAN route, there is something wrong with the transaction. But I think you've given up a very important risk mitigation strategy--
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
--and did you really intend to do that?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Only a few short years after the sponsorship fiasco, we've put in place a situation where that kind of abuse could still go on—in that case it was advertising contractors—with a preferred bunch of contractors. If nothing else, I think you've done us a great service by bringing this to our attention today in your otherwise comprehensive report.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Madam Chair, I don't think this was done just after the sponsorship thing. I think these rules have been there for a while. They have been in place for many years, even before sponsorship.
NDP
Liberal
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, I do.
You point out that you believe this dilutes risk mitigation strategies and may encourage unintended behaviour. What is the unintended behaviour?
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
“Unintended behaviour” refers to issuing an ACAN where no ACAN was necessary. For example, you know that it's not in the public interest to have a second bid, but you issue an ACAN and your authority goes up. Really, you should have never done that in the first place. You should have called it a sole-source contract and stayed within the limits assigned to you.
Conservative
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Minto, what would you say were some of the biggest surprises you've had in your job? Do you have any interesting observations you'd like to share with us?
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
I was really struck by the number of people within the procurement community who are working so hard in such a difficult environment. There's just a plethora of rules out there and some of them contradict each other.
They see themselves as being in a glass bowl. They see themselves as being held accountable for transactions that have gone wrong and that may or may not be their fault. Yet they're surviving and they're doing their best to provide service to the public. I was struck by that.
I was struck by the suppliers' sincerity in trying to find a level playing field. Nobody came and asked us to tilt things in his favour. Nobody asked for an unfair advantage. Everybody said they wanted an open chance to compete. I was really struck by that.
I was also struck by the unintended effects of some of the policies that are based on administrative convenience. I'm talking about standing offers and what happens there. Yes, there are not enough resources, and yes, it makes sense to consolidate purchases for some things, but does it make sense for everything?
I was struck by the unintended effects in the market. I really am looking for some recognition for the public servants who are working hard and who are really trying to do a good job, especially in the procurement community. I think that lately they have been provided leadership, and lately people have been thinking of training. I looked at some of the training plans, and everybody's plan shows four or five days of training, but nobody gets more than a day or two simply because there are just too many transactions.
In the years that I've been involved in procurement, the thing that most impresses me is how much technology has changed the business, how much easier it is now for suppliers to get to know about procurements through MERX and the websites the government maintains, and how much easier it is for a small procurement officer in a remote community to access a specialist sitting in Ottawa and get some advice. That's really helpful.
Conservative
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
That's a decent answer.
What would you say is the most interesting acquisition that you've had to deal with? Was there a file that took you by surprise? Was there something that you thought was unusual in a government acquisition?
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Are you talking about recent experiences? I'm not going to go back to what I saw at the AG's office.
Conservative
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
I'd have to say the most interesting things are the things that you least expect. Recently we looked at a situation in which somebody had asked for a change-management expert with 35 years' experience. How could that possibly help?
I remember looking at one file some time ago where there were 3,600 mandatory requirements. My God: 3,600 mandatory requirements. That is designed to keep people out rather than bring people in. Who's going to monitor that? That was fixed.
It's little things that take you by surprise. The vast majority of the government contracts go through with no problems. The vast majority of the government contracts happen without any issues. That's the thing I want to come back to.
Mistakes are going to happen. People in general—and this committee in particular—have to stop beating people up. That's what creates the risk-averse environment. We have to look at systemic issues. Individual mistakes will happen.
I have a chapter on CORCAN in my annual report. There was a significant error. Mistakes happen. But as soon as we brought it to the attention of management, they did everything necessary to fix it and we all moved on.
Some risk tolerance would help. You cannot afford an error-free, risk-free environment. It can never happen. Let's just accept that we are human beings and that people are doing their best. That's what I'd like to say.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
A couple of times you've mentioned you'd like to see some recognition of the hard work that public servants do. There have been a number of times in this committee when we've asked questions of people in different departments. I think that sometimes we try to acknowledge the hard work of people who work in the civil service, but sometimes we don't do it enough, so I appreciate your reminding us of that need.
We have also another job, though, and that is making sure that the government spends its money effectively. Can I ask you a couple of questions about your budget? We have the statement of operations from the year ending March 31, 2009. I want to make sure I'm connecting the dots. This is an office that now has 22—
