Public Accounts Committee on May 27th, 2021

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Could I ask for a written answer regarding rapid response?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Absolutely.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I want to know how quickly you can respond to these types of situations.

[Paul Glover]

It's just a matter of engagement with the industry.

It's a focus on the outcome, the business requirements. If the technology changes, we need to be adapting for wiring that into contracts so that we don't continue to roll out old technology. We get new versions automatically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

I assume, Mr. Berthold, you will not need a written answer.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I will, please. I just want to have the process, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Okay. Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Yip for the last five minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is directed to Mr. Matthews and Mr. Glover.

We've been talking about better collaboration between the federal departments and the private suppliers. One of the examples given in this report is that suppliers can provide comments or ask for clarifications about business or technical requirements. Was this something not available to them in past procurement processes?

There's also a section in the report stating that even when there is collaboration and dialogue, oftentimes the suppliers aren't provided clear answers to their questions in a timely manner.

My second question is this: What is being done differently through this agile procurement process to improve collaboration?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start, but I'll be quick and leave my colleague a couple of minutes as well.

I think it was always the case that potential bidders had the opportunity to pose questions about their request for proposals to get clarification, and in some cases the government would adjust the documentation based on feedback. That was always there.

The new or more recent type of development is something called “phased bid compliance”, in which gaps or space is left in the request-for-proposal process. If at our end clarification on what the bidder submitted is required, or they forgot to cross a t, we have the capacity to go back to them and get clarity or to allow them to provide proper documentation if it were an administrative oversight.

The change here is consulting on the actual requirements. We go out to industry and say, “Here's a draft of what we're thinking of doing. What do you think? Let's get your feedback.” That dialogue is very important, especially in the agile world. Where I would draw a distinction though is that when a company poses a question about the requirements in the formal bid process, we owe them an answer and we have to get them one in a timely fashion.

Where they're providing feedback on draft documents, in some cases it's genuine feedback, and in some cases they're trying to better position the request for proposal or the requirements to play to their competitive advantage. I don't feel as though we always owe them an answer on that front, but we do absolutely want to take their feedback and consider it. However, in that case it's up to the government what we do with it.

Paul, I'm not sure if you want to add anything.

[Paul Glover]

To complement what Deputy Matthews was saying, the issue has been that we focused very much on “Here's what we want”, and then industry. We're now changing that to say, “This is the problem. Can you help us with what the solutions are and what they might look like?” That requires more dialogue. That's a big part of how we've shifted in this agile approach. Rather than “Here are the requirements”—and we do do that—but the process now, in saying what outcome we need and asking what the best ways to achieve that are, requires more consistent engagement.

We also are trying to be more forthright in where we're going with some of the technologies, to signal to industry.... As an example, we're interested in 5G: How can we adopt that? Where are they going? It's creating opportunities that will influence our large procurement decisions, by their understanding where we are going and where they are going, long before the procurement process actually starts. The collaboration, if it's truly meaningful, has to start long before that procurement to understand the business objectives, the investments that industry is making, and where there are opportunities. We have regular sessions with industry long before the procurement to talk about the technology, what they see in the pipeline and what we need. Then when we get to the actual procurement, it's more on the outcome as we move forward.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you feel this is a longer process, having to make so many collaborative efforts? Is this dragging the whole project timeline, making it longer?

[Paul Glover]

I think the short answer is that it depends on the complexity of the issue. There are examples of where we have moved very quickly—in days—where people will look at this and say, “We don't have anything”, or “We can't do that”, or “We have something that we can offer.” If you think about how we stood up call centres very recently through the pandemic, we were able to work with a number of vendors. They were actually quite collaborative with us, telling us what they could and couldn't do, so that we could stand up services with the departments that needed them.

So it can work fast, absolutely, but there has to be a willingness, a clarity of the outcome that is required, and a willingness to move at speed. We do see instances of where I'm regularly criticized by industry for taking too long. Then we start agile, and then they criticize us for going too fast, because they're more comfortable with those older, traditional processes where they can challenge.

It is a bit of a fine line, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Ms. Yip.

Colleagues, it is one o'clock. That brings us to the end of our meeting.

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.

I will remind you, colleagues, that Tuesday's meeting will be with the Auditor General for an hour-long briefing on the reports that were tabled yesterday. During the second hour, we'll go in camera to discuss future business. I will also let you know that the clerk will be receiving the documents requested from the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency. The analysts will be reviewing them. They will be made available to members early next week.

Mr. Berthold, I see your hand up.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That was my question, Madam Chair.

I also want to know whether we'll soon be receiving the Transport Canada documents expected by the end of May.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

I will ask the clerk to speak to that. I'm assuming that if they have until the end of May, they might take it.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

I haven't followed up with them yet. I definitely will to make sure that they plan to deliver on time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Is the committee in agreement to adjourn the meeting?

I see a thumbs-up. Great.

Thank you so much. Have a great day.