Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates: May 1, 2024

Procurement Practice Review of Contracts Awarded to McKinsey & Company

Date: Wednesday May 1, 2024, 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Location: Room 025-B, West Block

Opening remarks

Arianne Reza, Deputy Minister
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO)
Report of the procurement ombud
Procurement Practice Review of Contracts Awarded to McKinsey & Company

May 1, 2024

Check against delivery

Approx. 692 words

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation.

Joining me today are:

• Dominic Laporte, Assistant Deputy Minister for Procurement
• Mollie Royds, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister for Procurement
• Catherine Poulin, Assistant Deputy Minister for Departmental Oversight

I want to start by thanking the Committee for this opportunity to appear to discuss the Procurement Ombud report on contracts awarded to McKinsey. Its important to me as the Deputy Minister (DM) with a key responsibility for procurement to be given the opportunity to comment.

I would also like to sincerely thank the Procurement Ombud and his team for their review of the contracts awarded to McKinsey. We have carefully considered the entire report – not only the recommendations where PSPC is implicated directly, but all recommendations to consider how we can take a leadership role to further strengthen procurement practices.

By way of context setting, in the midst of increasing public scrutiny and discourse related to procurement practices, the Prime Minister tasked the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to undertake a review of contracts awarded to McKinsey and examine if contracting processes complied with Treasury Board policy and departmental internal control frameworks. Then, shortly thereafter, in February 2023, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement made a further request that the Procurement Ombud conduct a review of federal contracts awarded to McKinsey.

Consistent with the results of the first review, the Procurement Ombud found no instances of political interference, no wrongdoing and no fraud. I believe this is important to the Committee and to the procurement workforce who take their stewardship and integrity responsibilities seriously.

The Ombud’s report looked at 32 contracts with McKinsey, PSPC was the contracting authority responsible for 23 contracts. As a result of his review, the Ombud made three recommendations directed to PSPC. The Department accepts and welcomes the recommendations and is implementing an action plan to further strengthen procurement processes, specifically as it relates to better documentation among others.

For example, one area of this review relates to the verification of security clearances for resources. I would like to reassure the Committee that all the McKinsey resources had the required security level to perform work and to access sensitive information and assets. That being said, the Office of the Procurement Ombud (OPO) report identifies documentation shortcomings, for example noting that the security clearance records should be also be consistently included in procurement files. As a result of the report, I have asked security and procurement officials to take a step back reconsider the existing rationale as to why the security clearance and contract records need to be kept in two physical places, and if this is still relevant as we move to e-procurement.

Turning to examine the procurement instruments that were used for contract award, PSPC took steps in 2021 to establish a national master standing offer, as an efficient approach to procure proprietary McKinsey benchmarking services that were in demand from client departments. In total, PSPC issued 19 contracts under this standing offer, which is now expired. The Ombud’s observations on the standing offer are actively informing the next iteration related of instruments to procuring benchmarking services.

Separate from the findings related to the standing offer, the Ombud concluded that – taken collectively – his observations led him to believe there were instances that the procurement processes created a “strong perception of favoritism towards McKinsey”. PSPC has no direct evidence of this. We have responded to the Procurement Ombud noting some of assumptions and interpretations differ from those made by PSPC. The Ombud acknowledged this by including references to our views in his report, which he reference in his testimony to this Committee earlier this week.

In closing, I want to be clear with the Committee that as the DM and as senior officials responsible for the procurement function in PSPC, we take to heart the observations and recommendations made by the Ombud. We have a responsibility to better understand and address his findings, especially as they relate to ensuring better record keeping and transparency to advance both the process and controls related to procurement.

Thank you.

Office of the Procurement Ombud’s Report on McKinsey

Issue

• On Monday, April 15, 2024, the OPO published its procurement practice review report for contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company

Key facts

• PSPC awarded 24 contracts to McKinsey & Company since 2011, with a total value of $104.6 million
• Of the 24 services contracts awarded by PSPC, 3 contracts were awarded through competition, 19 were undertaken as call-ups against a non-competitive standing offer and 2 directed contracts, of low dollar value, were awarded outside the standing offer
• All 24 contracts were awarded in 2018 or later. The 3 competitive contracts represent more than half (53%) of the total value of contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company

Key messages

• I am glad that the Procurement Ombud has released his review of all contracts awarded to McKinsey, as requested by my predecessor in February 2023
• PSPC accepts the OPO’s recommendations, and has developed action plans to strengthen its procurement policies and processes and to provide training opportunities for its procurement workforce
• I would also like to highlight some of the positive findings in the report, including the availability of proper documentation that supported fair enquiry processes during the solicitation period, and the consistency with which PSPC invoked and documented sole-sourcing decisions in low dollar value non-competitive contracts

If pressed on recommendation 2 (Security clearances):

• PSPC can confirm that all resources added through task authorizations had the required security level to perform work on the contracts, as well as to access sensitive information and assets. The Procurement Ombud’s report reflects the information available at the time of the review and did not take into account pending confirmations
• Nonetheless, PSPC agrees that security clearance records have not been consistently included in procurement files, and will be taking further action to promote recordkeeping diligence
• We have communicated clear expectations to PSPC clients and procurement teams in relation to documenting these security validations before issuing contracts or call-ups and during contract management
• We have also introduced a checklist for professional services procurement files that includes the requirement for PSPC and client contracting authorities to retain proof of security requirements

If pressed on recommendation 4 (Non-competitive national master standing offer (NMSO) for professional services):

• Establishing a non-competitive NMSO with McKinsey was an effective approach, at the time, to support departments in the management and delivery of complex projects and programs, but we recognize that a review and modernization of this procurement vehicle was overdue
• In light of this, PSPC made significant process changes in its administration of non-competitive standing offers for benchmarking professional services
• These changes include requiring that client departments draft all Statements of Work themselves and that a sole-source justification be provided for every contract awarded under a non-competitive standing offer for benchmarking services

If pressed on recommendation 5 (Non-competitive call-up procedures):

• PSPC is also taking action to strengthen call-up procedures for professional services, including instructing authorized users to prepare a Statement of Work specific to their requirement and requiring written justification for issuing a call-up without competition

If pressed on lack of documentation:

• PSPC agrees that procurement files should include documentation that outlines decisions; the rationale for making the decision cannot be assumed without evidence
• We are taking action to better document client driven decisions and actions and to promote recordkeeping diligence

Background

On February 3, 2023, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement requested that the Procurement Ombud conduct a review of all contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company. On March 16, 2023, after considering available information and determining that there were reasonable grounds to do so, the Procurement Ombud launched a review of the procurement practices of departments within his mandate to look at the award of contracts to McKinsey to assess fairness, openness, and transparency and compliance with legislative, regulatory, policy, and procedural requirements.

On January 18, 2023, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) adopted a motion for the Auditor General (AG) to conduct “a performance and value for money audit of the contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011, by any department, agency or Crown corporation.” The Committee’s motion was accepted by the House of Commons on February 7, 2023.Further, on February 8, 2023, the Office of the Comptroller General of Canada (OCG) directed the Chief Audit Executives of government organizations that had contracted with McKinsey to conduct internal audits of the related procurement processes. The results of these departmental audits were released in March 2023.

Contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company

Issue

There has been recent media and Parliamentary attention related to contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company.

Note:

• All questions related to McKinsey’s work on Robotic Process Automation and Accelerator Services are in a separate question period note (Phoenix International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and pay stabilization)

Key facts

• As central purchaser for the Government of Canada, PSPC awarded 24 contracts to McKinsey & Company since 2011, with a total value of $104.6 million
• Of the 24 services contracts awarded by PSPC, 3 contracts were awarded through competition, 19 were undertaken as call-ups against a non-competitive standing offer that was established for McKinsey & Company’s benchmarking services and which ended as planned in February 2023, and 2 other sole source contracts, of low dollar value, were awarded outside the standing offer
• All 24 contracts were awarded in 2018 or later. The 3 competitive contracts represent more than half (53%) of the total value of contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company
• In January 2023, the Prime Minister tasked the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of PSPC with reviewing contracts awarded to McKinsey. Internal audits were completed and posted publicly in March 2023. The review’s final report, published on June 27, 2023, noted that the integrity of the procurement process was maintained, that there was compliance with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, the Directive on Conflict of Interest, and the procurement policy. It also noted areas for improvement related to record management and contract administration
• On February 3, 2023 the Minister of PSPC requested to the OPO to review all federal contracts with McKinsey & Company
• On Monday April 15, 2024, the Procurement Ombud published its procurement practice review report for contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company

Key messages

• PSPC is committed to open, fair and transparent procurement processes, while obtaining the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers
• The decision to procure professional services to meet operational requirements rests with client departments, which can then request PSPC’s procurement services or award contracts within their own authorities
• PSPC accepts the OPO recommendations in their entirety, and has developed action plans to strengthen and modernize its procurement policies and processes and to provide training opportunities for its procurement workforce

If pressed on reviews of contracts to McKinsey & Company:

• My department has taken significant action in the context of the audits of contracts with McKinsey & Company, and questions raised about professional services contracting more broadly, and will continue to do so
• The review of federal contracts with McKinsey & Company by officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat and my Department found that the integrity of the procurement process was maintained and that there was compliance with the Values and Ethics Code and the Conflict of Interest directive
• PSPC has accepted all the recommendations from the relevant audits and reviews and has prepared Management Action Plans to address the areas of improvement identified
• PSPC also continues to collaborate with the OAG on its audit

If pressed on allegations of tax fraud and actions abroad that McKinsey is facing:

• We are aware of the adverse information related to McKinsey & Company and its affiliates. The company’s status under the Integrity Regime remains unchanged at this time
• Under the Government’s Integrity Regime, if a supplier is charged or convicted of an offence listed in the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy, the supplier may be suspended or determined to be ineligible to be awarded a contract. A suspension or determination of ineligibility would also be triggered by a foreign offence that is similar to one of the listed offences

Background

PSPC awarded 24 contracts to McKinsey & Company between 2011 and 2023. These contracts have recently been assessed by PSPC’s internal audit services and the OPO and are also subject to ongoing reviews by the OAG.

The internal review determined that, overall, the integrity of the procurement process was maintained and complied with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, the Directive on Conflict of Interest, and supporting procurement policy instruments and procedures. Specifically, no instances of non-conformity were found with respect to conflict of interest regarding current or former public servants or public office holders, as well as McKinsey & Company. However, it also found areas for improvement related to record management and contract administration.

PSPC has accepted all recommendations associated with this audit and has put in place a Management Action Plan. In addition, the department has reviewed all National Master Standing Offers related to benchmarking data analytics and services and will replace these tools in the future with a procurement approach that ensures open, fair and transparent competition as a starting point.

The McKinsey & Company standing offer expired in February 2023, as planned, and all other existing Standing Offers for benchmarking services will end between February and June 2024.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and auditors, including the OAG and the OPO have been focussing on 10 departments that contracted with McKinsey & Company under their own delegation. PSPC procured various professional services, including strategic advice, subject matter experts, benchmarking services and services for the development of transformation strategies, for 7 of these departments.

Outsourcing of professional services

Issue

There has been media attention on federal government spending on professional services contracts.

Key facts

• N/A

Key messages

• As a common service provider, PSPC provides procurement support to other departments in advancing policy and program objectives
• PSPC continuously improves and modernizes its procurement practices and instruments in the area of professional services to ensure they maximize value for money and that appropriate controls are in place
• The decision to hire public servants or to pursue professional services contracts is made by departments and agencies based on multiple factors including the nature and duration of the activity and the availability of specialized skills
• The vast majority of PSPC’s contracts for goods and services are for work that cannot and has not been traditionally carried out by public servants
• The Government commitment made in Budget 2023 to reduce spending on consulting and professional services is ongoing

If pressed on the growth in expenditures on professional services:

• Over the past decade, government expenditures on professional services have remained consistent, relative to both total government expenditures, and the total payroll for public servants

If pressed on subcontracting:

• The Government of Canada does not have a contractual relationship with any subcontractors
• While it is normal for firms to subcontract or collaborate with other firms or individuals to deliver on contracts, the main contractor is solely responsible for the performance of the sub-contractor
• This includes ensuring that subcontractors meet their contractual obligations and that all subcontracted resources requiring access to protected information or sensitive worksite/systems have the proper personnel security clearance
• If wrongdoing or contracting irregularities are detected, Canada has a number of measures in place to take action immediately, including revocation of security clearance(s), and referring the matter to law enforcement

If pressed on mark-ups (commissions) paid to vendors through subcontracting:

• For the majority of service contracts, rates are all-inclusive and are established based on fair and open competition
• In a competitive market, staffing agencies are required to be pragmatic in their rates, so they can attract quality resources, while remaining competitive with their peers
• For sole-source contracts and in cases where a competitive process results in the reception of only one compliant bid, a cost analysis is conducted to ensure that the rates proposed represent fair value for Canada

Background

The OPO and the OAG tabled audit reports on January 29, 2024 and February 12, 2024, respectively. The reports highlight serious concerns regarding project management and offer recommendations pertaining to procurement, specifically professional services.

In light of the findings of the audits, PSPC took immediate action to strengthen existing controls around the administration of professional services contracts. On November 28, 2023, other government departments and agencies were informed of new measures, introducing a common set of principles and mandatory procedures that clients must abide by to use PSPC’s professional services contracting instruments.

These changes closely align with the recommendations in the OAG and OPO audits and are echoed in the resultant management action plans PSPC committed to.

On October 5, 2023, Treasury Board published guidance about the use of contracted professional services. The Manager’s Guide: Key Considerations when Procuring Professional Services will help managers determine when to contract for professional services versus when to use internal resources. The Guide also lays out practical considerations for managers when structuring contracts so that they deliver best possible value, can be effectively managed, and fully align with requirements of Treasury Board’s Directive on the Management of Procurement.

Changes in procurement services in response to the Procurement Ombud’s and Auditor General’s reports

Issue

On November 2, 2022, a motion was passed by the House of Commons that called on OAG to conduct a performance audit on ArriveCAN, including on contracts and subcontracts, as well as payments under those contracts.

Reports resulting from a review carried out by the OPO and an audit conducted by the OAG were tabled on January 29, 2024, and February 12, 2024, respectively. The reports highlight serious concerns regarding project management and offer recommendations pertaining to procurement, specifically with regard to professional services.

Key facts

• The Procurement Ombud report made 14 recommendations based on the analysis of information and documentation provided to OPO by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), PSPC and Shared Services Canada (SSC) during the course of the review; PSPC responded to 8 recommendations
• The AG report made 8 recommendations, 1 of which relates to PSPC (jointly with CBSA)

Key messages

• PSPC takes the conclusions of the AG and of the OPO very seriously and is acting on the recommendations, in line with our commitment to open, fair and transparent procurement processes, while obtaining value for Canadian taxpayers
• Over the past year, PSPC has taken concrete actions to strengthen oversight on all professional services contracts falling under PSPC authority
• In light of the OPO and AG reports, PSPC instituted measures and controls on new and existing professional services contracts to strengthen contract management practices and is actively engaging with client departments and agencies to ensure that these new measures are implemented quickly and efficiently
• Collectively, these measures will help us continue to strengthen and enhance federal procurement processes to promote greater competition, particularly in the field of Information Technology (IT) consulting services

If pressed on immediate actions that PSPC is taking to strengthen existing controls and oversight for professional services contracting:

• PSPC has implemented the following changes:
• Requiring increased clarity from business owners on the scope, tasks and deliverables of new professional services contracts and task authorizations
• Improving evaluation requirements to more effectively validate that all resources have the required work experience and valid security clearances
• Improving documentation requirements at the time of contract award and when Task Authorizations are issued
• Suspending delegated authorities for departmental issuance of Task Authorizations against contracts awarded by PSPC until PSPC’s newly mandated professional services measures are implemented by departments
• The department is actively engaging with client departments and agencies to ensure that these new measures are implemented quickly and efficiently

If pressed on the actions being taken in response to the AG report:

• PSPC accepts recommendation 73, and has already taken action:
• PSPC provided direction to procurement staff in a December 4, 2023 communiqué to ensure that Task Authorizations include clear tasks and deliverables, in addition to identifying the specific project(s) or initiative(s) that are included in the scope of contracts
• Additionally, PSPC sent a directive to its client departments, via their Senior Designated Official for the Management of Procurement, indicating that this change was brought into effect for professional services contracts as of November 28, 2023
• PSPC will also update the Guide to Preparing and Administering Task Authorizations, as well as the Record of Agreement template for clients, by April 2024
  If pressed on the actions being taken in response to the procurement ombud’s review:
• The Procurement Ombud’s report made 13 recommendations, 8 of which were assigned to PSPC
• PSPC has taken immediate action in response to the recommendations to strengthen existing controls around the administration of professional services contracts:
• PSPC has implemented a new checklist for Task Authorizations to ensure that contracts include specific criteria for Technical Authorities to assess resource qualifications and criteria
• PSPC will ensure that Task Authorizations include clear tasks and deliverables and identify the specific project or initiative on which a resource will be working
• PSPC will ensure more robust procurement files, by, for example, obtaining security clearance confirmation, copies of résumés and evaluation grids that demonstrate that resources meet qualification and experience requirements, copies of invoices accompanied by time sheets
• PSPC is also reviewing the “Substantiation of Professional Services Rates” clause that permits Canada to require bidders to substantiate proposed rates that fall below the lower limit of the median band

If pressed on indigenous contracting:

• The Government of Canada is committed to economic Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. As part of this commitment, we will promote socio-economic outcomes by increasing economic opportunities for First Nations, Inuit and Métis businesses through the federal procurement process
• Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) administers the Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Businesses and is responsible for assessing suppliers' eligibility for the program and for maintaining the Indigenous Business Directory
• When awarding contracts under the Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Businesses program, PSPC relies on pre-award audits performed by ISC to verify if the Indigenous business meets the ownership and control criteria
• Post-award audits are optional under the program. These audits re-examine ownership and control criteria and Indigenous content criteria, including the requirement that 33% of the work be performed by the Indigenous partner in a joint venture

Background

Under its authorities, PSPC awarded contracts in support of ArriveCAN and was responsible for providing procurement guidance to the client department. The CBSA was responsible for developing and managing the ArriveCAN tool based on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s health requirements enforced by the Quarantine Act.

A total of 46 different contracts were used in support of ArriveCAN. Of these 46 contracts, 31 were awarded by PSPC under its authorities:

• 19 contracts were competitive under normal contracting authorities, including 6 that were set-aside for Indigenous businesses under the Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business program
• 12 contracts were non-competitive, including 8 contracts to procure software licenses that were sole sourced due to intellectual property rights or urgent need
• Of the 12 non-competitive contracts, 4 used COVID-19 emergency contracting authorities for the contracting of IT consultants
• 11 of the 31 competitive and non-competitive contracts that PSPC issued were awarded before the COVID-19 pandemic and were leveraged by the CBSA to bring in resources to work on ArriveCAN

On November 14, 2022, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) adopted a motion recommending that the Procurement Ombud conduct a review of contracts awarded in relation to the ArriveCAN application.

On January 13, 2023, the OPO determined that there were reasonable grounds to launch a review of procurement activities associated with the creation, implementation and maintenance of ArriveCAN.

In light of the findings of the review and audit, PSPC took immediate action to strengthen existing controls around the administration of professional services contracts. On November 28, 2023, other government departments and agencies were informed of new measures, introducing a common set of principles and mandatory procedures that clients must abide by to use PSPC’s professional services contracting instruments.

These changes closely align with the recommendations in the OAG and OPO reports and are echoed in the resultant management action plans to which PSPC has committed.

Integrity regime enhancements

Issue

The marketplace has greatly evolved in recent years, and gaps in the current Integrity Regime have impacted the government’s ability to fully mitigate the risk posed by some suppliers. PSPC has announced the launch of a new Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance.

Key messages

• The Government of Canada is committed to taking action against improper and unethical business practices, and to holding companies accountable for their misconduct while protecting federal expenditures
• The Government of Canada announced the launch of the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance, which will come into effect in May 2024, replacing the existing Integrity Regime
• The new Office will improve the government’s ability to respond to emerging risks of misconduct and fraud while protecting the integrity of the federal procurement and real property systems
• The Office will provide new tools to address corporate misconduct, and support federal efforts to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains, in addition to targeting financing of terrorism, human trafficking and offences under federal environmental laws. The Office will also further strengthen PSPC’s use of data analytics to help detect fraudulent schemes
• My department is currently engaging with key stakeholder groups, and we will work with them to ensure that industry partners understand the program changes and requirements

Background

The Integrity Regime was introduced in 2015 as a government-wide policy-based debarment system designed to further protect the integrity of the Government of Canada’s contracts and real property transactions.

The current regime is a government-wide debarment system that is designed to help ensure that the Government of Canada conducts business with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad. The program plays a significant role in safeguarding the federal procurement system, which encompasses approximately $20 billion annually for procurement contracts, real property agreements, the management of Crown-owned properties, and rental payments on 1,690 lease contracts across Canada.

The new Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance program will provide an opportunity to modernize the Government of Canada’s debarment and suspension program and further strengthen its use of data analytics to identify potential instances of fraud and wrongdoing, and better leverage intelligence relevant to assessing the integrity of the vendors with whom the government contracts.

Further details concerning the launch of the new Office and the revised Ineligibility and Suspension Policy will be made available in the coming weeks, in advance of the new program coming into effect.

Federal contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company

Review by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Public Services and Procurement Canada

Summary of relevant order paper questions and responses

During the 44th Parliament, since October 2022, PSPC has received seven questions related to McKinsey & Co. These questions have largely touched on the value of contracts awarded to McKinsey.

In October 2022 the Conservatives asked about the total amounts of contracts awarded to McKinsey since March 2021 (Q-924), and PSPC provided a list of contracts administered by PSPC as a Common Service Provider (CSP). The total amount spent on contracts was $45,662,321. The contracts were all for Information- and Information Retrieval Professional Services. No other details besides the amount, date and brief description of the goods or services was provided.

In November 2022, the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) asked about contracts awarded and their value but did not provide a timeframe so PCO used the date of the Order Paper Question (OPQ) as the beginning date (Q-978). PSPC responded with a NIL.

In February 2023, the New Democratic Party (NDP) asked about contracts awarded since the 2015-2016 fiscal year and the value of them (Q-1283). There were only entries for the years 2018-19 to 2022-23 for PSPC as a CSP. There was only one entry for the year 2019-2020 for PSPC as a department.

In February of 2023, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) asked about PSPC’s communications and contracts with McKinsey & Co. and how they relate to the Integrity Regime (Q-1245). Aside from a few messages between senior staff about the contracts, the response largely referred to public Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) information on the Integrity Regime.

In May 2023, the NDP asked the same question again about contracts awarded since the 2015-2016 fiscal year and the value of them (Q-1517). There were only entries for the years 2018-19 to 2022-23 for PSPC as a CSP. There was only one entry for the year 2019-2020 for PSPC as a department.

In February 2024, the NDP asked about contracts awarded since the 2009-2010 fiscal year and the value of them (Q-2364). PSPC responded both as a CSP and as a department for contracts under $10,000 (those over $10,000 are reported on Open Government). PSPC had no contracts with McKinsey & Co. as a department and none as a CSP.

In April 2024, the CPC asked about report, studies, assessments, etc. prepared by McKinsey for the government since December 2020 (Q-2516). This OPQ has not yet been submitted to the Government House Leader (GHL).

Order paper questions

Question number: Q-924

Date: October 25, 2022

From: Mr. Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove)

With regard to contracts provided by the government to McKinsey & Company since March 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of goods or services provided, (v) the topics related to the goods or services, (vi) the specific goals or objectives related to the contract, (vii) whether or not the goals or objectives were met, (viii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process.

Summary: Details on contracts provided by Government of Canada (GC) to McKinsey & Co. since March 2021.

PSPC response: Only as CSP did PSPC have contracts. Amounts provided but no details available on goods or services provided.

Question number: Q-1517

Date: May 5, 2023

From: Mr. Johns (Courtenay-Alberni)

With regard to contracts awarded since the 2015-16 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) K P M G (KPMG), (vi) Ernst and Young?

Summary: Total value of contracts awarded to McKinsey & Co., Deloitte, PWC, Accenture, KPMG, and Ernst & Young since 2015-2016 FY.

PSPC response: Various entries for PSPC as a department. Various entries as CSP.

Question number: Q-978

Date: November 16, 2022

From: Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean)

With regard to the awarding of contracts by the government to the private firm McKinsey: (a) how many contracts were awarded by the government to the private firm McKinsey; and (b) what is the value and nature of each of these contracts?

Summary: Details on contracts awarded to McKinsey (no time frame).

PSPC response: NIL (for the Nov 22, 2021-Nov 16, 2022 PCO-imposed time frame)

Question number: Q-1283

Date: February 15, 2023

From: Mr. Johns (Courtenay-Alberni)

With regard to federal contracts awarded since fiscal year 2015-16, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young?

Summary: Total value of contracts awarded to McKinsey & Co., Deloitte, PWC, Accenture, KPMG, and Ernst & Young since 2015-2016 FY.

PSPC response: Various entries for PSPC as a department. Various entries as CSP.

Question number: Q-1245

Date: February 13, 2023

From: Ms. Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill)

With regard to PSPC and the Integrity Regime, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of any memorandums, briefing notes, or other similar type of documents which discussed the status of McKinsey & Company’s acceptability to receive contracts under the Integrity Regime, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) type of document, (v) title, (vi) file number; (b) does the government consider McKinsey & Company to have met the Integrity Regime’s definition of an ethical supplier; (c) has any government official ever raised the issue of McKinsey’s eligibility under the Integrity Regime, and, if so, what are the details of each instance, including (i) the date, (ii) who raised the issue, (iii) who the issue was raised with, (iv) the concerns raised, (v) the reason the concerns were dismissed; and (d) has the registrar received notification from McKinsey & Company per the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy of any criminal charges or convictions or other relevant circumstances with respect to any of their work abroad, and, if so, on what dates?

Summary: Details on the PSPC Integrity Regime concerning McKinsey & Co.

PSPC response: Largely general information on the Integrity Regime from the TBS website.

Question number: Q-2364

Date: February 22, 2024

From: Mr. Johns (Courtenay-Alberni)

With regard to contracts awarded since the 2009-10 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young, (vii) GC Strategies, (viii) Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., (ix) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (x) Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd, (xi) Dalian and Coradix in joint venture?

Summary: Details on contracts awarded to various consultant groups.

PSPC response: Responses as CSP and department. Annexes captures contracts under $10,000 only. Response refers to Open Gov website for those over $10,000.

Question number: Q-2516

Date: April 9, 2024

From: Mr. Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner)

With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by McKinsey & Company since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable?

Summary: Details on reports, studies, assessments, etc. prepared by McKinsey & Co.

PSPC response: Not yet submitted to GHL.

Procurement Ombud’s Report on McKinsey

Procurement Practice Review of Contracts Awarded to McKinsey & Company