Supplier Advisory Committee: Record of discussion: November 1, 2024

Find the agenda and the record of discussion (RoD). 

Meeting location:  Virtual, MS Team

November 1, 2024, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. (ET)

• Government co-chair: Public Service and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Procurement Branch (PB), Joëlle Paquette, Acting / Associate Assistant Deputy Minister (A/AADM)
• Interim Private Sector co-chair: CMC-Canada, Donna Ringrose, Executive Director

• Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC): Dwayne Lucas, Vice President, Special Projects
• Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC): Cassandra Dorrington, President & CEO
• Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI): Nicolas Todd, Vice President, Government Relations, and Communications
• Canadian Chamber of Commerce (CCC): Alex Greco, Senior Director, Manufacturing & Value Chains
• Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB): Michelle Auger, Manager, National Business Issues and Projects
• Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME): Haroun Mansour, delegate for Ryan Greer, Vice President, Public Affairs & National Policy
• Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO): Ray Wanuch, Executive Director
• TECHNATION Canada: Prateek Sureka, Executive Vice President, Government Relations, and Strategy

• Black Businesses and Professional Association (BBPA): Frances Delsol, Vice President Partnerships, Outreach and Procurement
• Canadian Association of Management Consultants (CMC-Canada): Sandy Moir, Partner at Goss Gilroy Inc. Management Consultants
• Canadian Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (CGLCC): Darrell Schuurman
• Women’s Business Enterprises Canada Council (WBE Canada): Charli Law Jury, Interim CEO, Director of Finance & Operations

• PSPC, Clinton Lawrence-Whyte, DG, Procurement Assistance Canada (PAC)
• PSPC, Levent Ozmutlu, DG, Strategic Policy Sector (SPS)
• PSPC, Santina Vendra, Associate Director, Strategic Policy Sector (SPS)
• PSPC, Lysane Bolduc, DG, Professional Services Transformative Solutions Sector (PSTSS)
• PSPC, Judith Rorai, Director, Procurement Transformation and Partnerships
• PSPC, Sophie Savard, A/Director General, Acquisitions Program Transformation Sector (APTS)
• PSPC, Ghislaine Maisonneuve, Learning Design Specialist, Acquisitions Program Transformation Sector (APTS)
• PSPC, Alexandre Picard, Director, Department Oversight Branch (DOB)
• PSPC, Chris Saunders, Manager, Department Oversight Branch (DOB)
• PSPC, Michelle Laviolette, Manager, Department Oversight Branch (DOB)

• PSPC, Chantal Warywoda, A/Senior Director, Supplier Engagement and Regional Coordination (SERC)
• PSPC, Aline Ngarukiyintwali, Manager, Inreach, SERC
• PSPC, Michael Semenick, Inreach
• PSPC, Fresnel Devalon, Inreach
• PSPC, Fabiola Ingabire, Inreach

The government co-chair welcomed everyone and acknowledged that the meeting was being coordinated from the unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg people. She invited all to participate in the official language of their choice and asked the Interim Private Sector co-chair to conduct the roll call. 

The government co-chair explained the recent changes of the industry co-chair position being vacant following the departure of the former co-chair. She thanked the latter for her dedicated service in the Committee. She welcomed the new industry co-chair and thanked her for agreeing to take over the interim position until the next election, scheduled for spring 2025.

The new industry co-chair introduced herself and looked forward to working with SAC members.

SAC unanimously approved the record of discussion for the June 5, 2024, meeting. 

The government co-chair invited PSPC-SPS, PSPC-PSTSS and PSPC-PAC to provide updates. 

PSPC-SPS provided an update on the Supplier Diversity Program and indicated that they are still working through the approval process. 

PSPC-PSTSS provided an update on the professional services transformation action plan update.

PSPC-PSTSS began the presentation by addressing six areas of focus of the action plan. The first area emphasizes the procurement delivery optimization model, which aims to replace the current methods of supply vehicles and transition to the new PSPC Information Technology infrastructure in seamless fashion. The second area focuses on contract management and vendor performance, with the goal of improving outcomes through better methodologies, monitoring, evaluation, documentation, and mechanisms to capture past performance.

The next area of focus is quality control and oversight. PSPC-PSTSS indicated that a chief quality and compliance officer position has been created to ensure internal monitoring. The last three areas of focus involve contract cost control, stakeholder engagement and stakeholder support, respectively.

PSPC-PAC provided an update on its engagements and activities.  

PSPC-PAC advised that the sector has been active hosting events throughout the year in many communities. PSPC-PAC mentioned some upcoming events in November for women entrepreneurs (Quebec City), for local businesses in Gatineau and SMEs in Ottawa. PSPC-PAC also praised the partnership with CANDO for the BC procurement showcase and the Economic Development Officers (EDO) tools, which facilitate connection with Indigenous businesses across the country. 

PSPC-PAC also mentioned a session with PAC executives to discuss the organization’s priorities and mission. PAC aims to lead a collaborative procurement ecosystem that engages and supports small and diverse businesses, partners, and government departments. Their four main priorities for the year include: advancing procurement transformation initiatives, strengthening engagement with partners, using data and business intelligence to improve procurement operations, and fostering a positive organizational culture. Overall, the mood within PAC is positive, with team members participating in both external and internal collaborations.

SAC members provided the following feedback:

• CADSI expressed concerns about the government’s relationship with third-party certification bodies (i.e., whether the government needs to accredit them or have an MOU with them). PSPC-SPS replied that, in addition to third-party certification, they would accept self-certification with rigorous background checks. PSPC-SPS currently recognizes the following third-party certification associations: Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (CGLCC), the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC), the Inclusive Workplace and Supply Council of Canada (IWSCC) and Women’s Business Enterprises Canada Council (WBE). PSPC-SPS, however, admitted that this list could grow in the future. PSPC-SPS also indicated that third-party certification associations with the capacity to conduct due diligence might give another level of assurance to the process. In terms of MOUs, PSPC-SPS is waiting for the SDP to launch and is of course open to further discussion as the program evolves. PSPC-SPS is hoping to launch first and then implement accompanying measures over time. 
• CAMSC further warned the government about the danger of other associations claiming the right to be third-party certifiers. PSPC-SPS admitted the risk associated with any program and the potential for abuse or other issues. PSPC-SPS assured SAC members they will remain vigilant and monitor the evolution of the program closely. 
• CADSI inquired about performance targets set for the Supplier Diversity Program. PSPC-SPS admitted the lack of baseline data to set targets was a challenge. They plan to use data collected from the initial year as a baseline after the program’s launch. PSPC-SPS will then determine what targets, if any, can be established.  PSPC-SPS commented that the situation around Indigenous procurement is different since the 5% target was established after years of work. The organization then assured SAC members that supplier diversity targets will be addressed in subsequent phases as appropriate.
• CADSI also inquired about how PSPC-PSTSS obtained input from the private sector regarding the transformation of professional services. PSPC-PSTSS mentioned that a request for information was launched in January on CanadaBuys for questions and comments. There has been so far 2 waves of questions and 2 waves of answers. The organization also mentioned that it meets regularly with associations which represent different market segments (e.g. TECHNATION) to get more input and insight from the information technology industry. Finally, through PAC and PAC events, PSPC-PSTSS can have an open dialogue with the private sector.  
• PSPC-PSTSS added that they are looking at reducing the number of methods of supply based on private sector feedback. PSPC-PSTSS also recognized that the themes of the questions received are recurring, despite different forms of meeting with specific segments of industry.

PSPC - SPS provided an overview of Vendor Performance Management (VPM). 

The VPM is a framework that provides the necessary tools and processes to evaluate vendor performance on government contracts. The goal is to promote proactive contract management, reward good vendor behaviour or performance and hold poor performers accountable. 

The VPM was developed and refined through consultations with stakeholders, including industries.  Consultations were held in six regions to gauge interest in managing vendor performance among procurement professionals and client departments. Feedback gathered will help government improve overall contractual outcomes for federal procurement while optimizing best value for Canadians.

The framework allows vendor performance to be assessed objectively based on cost, quality, schedule, and management. The integration of the VPM into professional services solicitation documents will be phased. The approach adopted will be based on the volume and value of procurements, first from PSPC and subsequently from other departments. VPM scores will have no impact on vendors’ ability to get contracts during the first year of the program’s implementation. 

PSPC-APTS provided a demonstration on the VPM module.  

PSPC-APTS demonstrated the new vendor performance management module, which resides under the Supplier Profile Management (SPM) project in the Electronic Procurement Solution(EPS). They mentioned that the VPM module was in the early stage of implementation and noted that future enhancements could be considered based on feedback.

SAC members provided the following feedback: 

• CMC-Canada inquired whether these changes were communicated to industry at large. PSPC-SPS concurred with the need to have a clear communication plan in addition to a notice on CanadaBuys to inform the supplier community of the changes. PSPC-SPS advised they plan to increase outreach while targeting other commodities when they start using the scores. PSPC-SPS further planned to communicate to a wide range of suppliers and clients using a multi-pronged approach. CMC-Canada asked about the communication approach, which will be embedded in procurement with the initial launch. PSPC-SPS reiterated that the goal is to add more rigour on contract management, promote good practices, and address issues proactively.
• CMC-Canada also inquired if any feedback from suppliers had been received. PSPC-APTS responded that it is still early in the process and suppliers have yet to use the system. PSPC-PSTSS mentioned that the first contract was just released, and the system is in its initial stages. 
• CAMSC questioned whether there would be support for suppliers who are dissatisfied with their scores when rated much lower than expected. PSPC-SPS clarified that if an impasse occurs, a service would be available for education and communication. PSPC-SPS explained that there will be an escalation process to resolve disagreements, starting with internal conversations and potentially involving the Office of the Procurement Ombud to mediate and arbitrate if necessary. The goal is to resolve issues quickly to avoid delays.
• CAMSC also asked if VPM scores for future bids would favour suppliers with prior experience. PSPC-SPS accepted the concern but assured SAC members that new entrants will not be disadvantaged. PSPC-PSTSS proposed a solution where new vendors could receive full points in technical evaluations to avoid disadvantages, suggesting that this could be easily addressed given the system's flexibility. PSPC-APTS added that the system allows for information exchange and a back-and-forth process, and that they are developing policies to ensure fair treatment of new entrants. PSPC-APTS also mentioned this approach is consistent with practices in other jurisdictions and emphasized that they relied on policies and processes for fair assessments. 
• CANDO highlighted the importance of open communication to keep Indigenous groups involved in the development of this tool. CADSI asked how different perspectives have been considered, noting the discussion had been quiet since 2015. PSPC-SPS  reassured that the approach had remained consistent. The VPM system has been tested with different supplier communities
• CADSI inquired if the system was subject to ATIP, to which PSPC-APTS responded that discussions were open. AIAC asked if a conflict resolution process would be implemented with specific timelines. PSPC-SPS confirmed they are working on this as well as timelines, roles, and responsibilities in the process. PSPC-APTS noted that performance scores would not be used to create performance history in the first year and that performance under VPM would not be linked to payment terms, though some procurements might still have performance-based payment terms.
• CADSI asked about changes in the system since it was less active and whether information in the system could be disclosed to third parties, including for audits and ATIP requests. PSPC-SPS mentioned that the system functionality has been tested and piloted. While some suppliers may be unfamiliar with it, there will be phase-based rollouts and meetings to ensure understanding. PSPC-APTS clarified that currently, only the supplier and technical authorities can access system data, but the system is flexible with roles and permissions. For audits and data access, PSPC-APTS thinks that more roles can be configured, considering the implications for transparency and confidentiality, including disclosure under laws like ATIP.

PSPC-DOB provided an overview on the contract security program changes and preliminary results.

PSPC-DOB’s presentation focused on improvements in security clearance processes and managing backlogs at the Security and Procurement Service. 

PSPC is the lead department for industrial security, handling security clearances for companies and employees, security inspections and assessments for foreign ownership or influence. They work with over 25,000 Canadian companies.

PSPC-DOB highlighted efforts to reduce security clearance processing times due to a new process focusing on specific bidders. The average time for a Document of Security (DOS) and a Facility Security Clearance (FSC) is now 27 days instead of 75 days, and 74 days instead of 120 days, respectively. A test with Defence Construction Canada (DCC) saw even faster times (7 days for DOS, 30 days for FSC).

PSPC-DOB mentioned a significant reduction in backlogged security screening requests, due to streamlined processes, better risk management, increased staffing, and improved resource allocation. The goal is to reduce the backlog from 3,100 now to around 2,000 by March 2025.

PSPC-DOB discussed plans to increase integration with national security community for better information sharing and to improve data analytics to enhance decision-making and efficiency. They also aim to clarify eligibility criteria for high-risk clearances to make processes more transparent for industry partners.

SAC members provided the following feedback:

• CMC-Canada asked if changes were communicated to Industry. PSPC-DOB acknowledged that while changes to the security clearance process have been discussed with the defence industry, broader outreach has yet to be done. PSPC-DOB said they are open to receiving feedback and plan to engage more once further details are finalized.
• CMC-Canada also asked if the government requires anything from the business community based on these changes. PSPC-DOB advised that organizations should ensure their security teams have adequate resources, as this can expedite the clearance process. PSPC-DOB further encourages early engagement, particularly when facing roadblocks with government projects. Companies should engage at the working level to resolve issues before they escalate.
• CANDO raised concerns about Indigenous peoples' access to government contracts and security clearances, especially considering socio-economic challenges. PSPC-DOB replied by highlighting that there is a framework that prioritizes clearances for Indigenous and underrepresented individuals and businesses. PSPC-DOB also mentioned that self-identification can help speed up the process. They offer additional support to overcome barriers like fingerprinting challenges. 
• PSPC-DOB emphasized that the security clearance process will be adapted to accommodate the unique challenges faced by Indigenous groups, such as difficulty in obtaining necessary documentation. They stressed the importance of being informed about these challenges so that the process can be adjusted accordingly. PSPC-DOB finally encouraged communication from organizations to ensure the process aligns with their needs and realities.

The government co-chair discussed proposed dates for 2025 meetings and asked for feedback. She reminded SAC members about the virtual meeting in February and the in-person one in June.  

PSPC-PAC suggested notifying SAC Secretariat early if any major events conflict with those dates. The government co-chair mentioned that an email with the proposed dates will be sent after the meeting to allow SAC members to check the proposed dates against their calendars. She further added that the goal is to confirm the dates and plan the agenda for the next SAC meeting in February.

CAMSC raised concerns about the lack of a set date for the Supplier Diversity Program launch and called for improved communication to avoid any surprises for their organisation. They also proposed potentially helping with the promotion of the program among their bases. The government co-chair acknowledged the delay due to needing ministerial approval, especially following changes made regarding Indigenous consultations. She promised to inform the group once a date is confirmed.

The government co-chair appreciated the productive discussions and encouraged prompt responses to future meeting invitations.

The interim industry co-chair also concluded by thanking everyone for their participation and engagement.