MAF 2022 to 2023 Management of Acquired Services and Assets Methodology

Rationale

This question serves to provide a general overview of the department or agency’s stocktaking strategy, a requirement of both the outgoing policy and the Directive on the Management of Materiel. A robust strategy helps to minimize the risk of loss, damage or unauthorized access to their materiel holdings. The evidence provided will help to identify the range of strategies and approaches to risk-based stocktaking across departments, as well as the frequency with which these strategies are updated and how departments respond to evolving risks across departments and agencies. To identify how departments have responded to materiel related challenges arising from increased remote work.

By assessing the methods used to assess risk and to update stocktaking strategies, we can identify best practices, and inform Deputy Heads or Senior Designated Officials and the TBS-Office of the Comptroller General on whether these requirements of a good asset management regime are in place. A strong asset management regime ensures that departments have the materiel necessary to accomplish their mandate, and that their materiel holdings provide best value.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Expected results are a medium. Departments will have evidence outlining a materiel management framework that includes a range of risk-based categories for the establishment of stocktaking schedules or practices. Some departments will have systems for the review and modification of these classes, with evidence related to new or evolving sources of risk over the course of the year of assessment. These tools are necessary to ensure that departments can effectively track and monitor condition and performance of different types of materiel.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Number of elements supporting the management and implementation of the department or agency’s approach to stocktaking, divided by 4 (the total number of elements requested - see Evidence Requirements for Question 1 below), multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage.

• HIGH = 76% - 100%
• MEDIUM = 26% - 75%
• LOW = 0% - 25%

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

There are no half-points for the below elements:

• Stocktaking schedules for all classes of materiel;
• A recent risk analysis for one or more classes of materiel;
• A materiel management policy, framework, or work plan that incorporates inventory processes into a life-cycle approach to materiel management;
• Guidance or templates for stocktaking, such as templates, example entries, or user manuals.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Policy on Management of Materiel
6.1.8

Directive on the Management of Materiel
4.2.5

Rationale

This question assesses the maturity of the real property portfolio strategy within departments and agencies providing deputy heads with insight into their organization’s ability to make investment decisions into real property that demonstrate best value and sound stewardship. A robust real property portfolio strategy drives change by describing how an organization’s real property assets will be intentionally and proactively managed to support: a) the department or agency’s mandate, strategic business objectives, and forward-looking program requirements; b) Government of Canada enterprise-wide priorities for real property and socio-economic outcomes (e.g. greening government operations), and; c) sound stewardship and best value to the Crown.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Departments and agencies are expected to have a minimum maturity level of MEDIUM. Departments and agencies should submit the most recent internally approved versions of the real property management framework and the real property portfolio strategy, ensuring that any completed elements are clearly identified where possible. For those elements that are not yet complete and approved, a brief plan (e.g. timeline) to address them should be included.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022

Calculation Method

Number of elements supporting the development, implementation, and monitoring of the department or agency’s real property portfolio strategy that exist and are internally approved divided by 12 (the total number of elements requested - see Evidence Requirements for Question 2 below), multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage.

• HIGH = 71% - 100%
• MEDIUM = 41% - 70%
• LOW = 0% - 40%

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

• Evidence must include the most recent approved version of the organization’s real property management framework and real property portfolio strategy, aligned to the Directive on the Management of Real Property, including an implementation plan with planned actions relating to acquisitions, operations and maintenance, and disposal of real property assets.
• Evidence must include the completed template for Q2, indicating which elements have been submitted, and where they are found.
• Below is a checklist of elements that will be assessed with respect to having a completed real property portfolio strategy:
  • The real property portfolio strategy is an output of the portfolio management process. Evidence must include the most recent approved real property management framework outlining the processes, systems, and controls that support the real property portfolio strategy – 1 point
  • A completed real property portfolio strategy includes:
    • Identification of organizational and enterprise strategic priorities and an overall portfolio vision – 1 point
    • Key performance indicators for all five performance areas at both the individual asset and portfolio levels – 1 point
    • An assessment of the current state of the entire portfolio (i.e. the “supply”) including how it is segmented to inform decision-making – 1 point
    • Environmental scan including market conditions – 1 point
    • Program demand information (i.e. the “demand”) with gaps, if any, identified for medium to long-term demand – 1 point
    • Supply and demand analysis – 1 point
    • Integration of the net-zero carbon and climate resilient portfolio plan – 1 point
    • Options analysis demonstrating best value considerations (e.g. options for methods of control, balancing of socio-economic benefits with cost) – 1 point
    • Evidence of integration of asset segmentation, socio-economic priorities, and the portfolio vision – 1 point
    • Implementation plan (i.e. planned actions for each asset over its life-cycle) to inform the investment planning process over a planning horizon of five years – 1 point
    • A process to monitor the progress of implementation – 1 point
• A total of 12 points may be awarded for this question. Should any of the above elements not be completed and/or approved, a brief timeline to address them should be included.
• Narrative summary documents and organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the evidence requirements are strongly encouraged

Data collection Method

Template

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes but not in 2022-23. The question has been adapted to produce a quantitative result. It was previously yes/no.
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex B (if applicable)

Guide on Implementation of the Directive on the Management of Real Property: Real Property Portfolio Strategy

Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments
4.1.18 Ensuring that real property and materiel are managed using a life-cycle approach that:
4.1.18.1 Bases investment decision on real property portfolio strategies and materiel strategies

Directive on the Management of Real Property
4.1.4 Ensuring the development, implementation and monitoring of a real property portfolio strategy
4.2.5 Developing the real property portfolio strategy
4.2.18 Implementing the commitments set out in the Greening Government Strategy

Policy on Management of Real Property
6.1.4 Acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposal strategies are developed based on the findings of the performance assessment and on an economic and program analysis that considers the full life-cycle costs and benefits of the real property options to meeting ongoing program requirements. These strategies must inform the development of the departmental investment plan.
6.1.11 Real property is managed in an environmentally responsible manner consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The environmental condition of real property must be ascertained to determine whether it is or can be made environmentally compatible with its current and intended use.

Rationale

The actual rate of reinvestment indicates to deputy heads whether adequate resources are being dedicated to maintaining the custodial real property asset portfolio in acceptable condition without increasing deferred maintenance. A comparison of the actual rate of reinvestment with the target rate established in the real property portfolio strategy may identify opportunities for deputy heads to adjust resource allocations in order to demonstrate sound stewardship and best value to the Crown. A reinvestment rate below what life-cycle forecasts project jeopardizes program and service delivery by increasing the risk of asset failure and does not demonstrate best value because maintenance and repair work that is deferred into the future is more expensive.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Departments and agencies are expected to have an actual reinvestment rate at or approaching the target rate set out in the real property portfolio strategy.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Data will be extracted by TBS from the Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP).

Total expenditures = recapitalization + repair and maintenance
Actual Reinvestment Rate = (Total expenditures / Current Replacement Value) * 100

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

TBS will extract total expenditures on repair and maintenance, total expenditures on recapitalization, and current replacement value for 2021-22 from the Directory of Federal Real Property

Data collection Method

Directory of Federal Real Property

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes The question has been updated, but the actual reinvestment rates are available for 2019-20, 2020-21.
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex B (if applicable)

Directive on the Management of Real Property
4.2.6 Maintaining the physical performance and functionality of real property

Rationale

The target rate of reinvestment indicates to deputy heads the resources required to maintain the custodial real property asset portfolio in acceptable condition without increasing deferred maintenance. A comparison of the target rate of reinvestment with the actual rate of reinvestment over the assessment period may identify opportunities for deputy heads to adjust resource allocations in order to demonstrate sound stewardship and best value to the Crown. A target reinvestment rate below what life-cycle forecasts project may jeopardize program and service delivery by increasing the risk of asset failure and does not demonstrate best value because maintenance and repair work that is deferred into the future is more expensive.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Departments and agencies are expected to have a target reinvestment rate based on need (i.e. life-cycle projections) and not on currently available funding. It should be high enough to maintain the portfolio in acceptable condition according to life-cycle projections while preventing further increases to outstanding deferred maintenance.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Target Reinvestment rate = (Total estimated expenditures / Current Replacement Value) * 100

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Departments and agencies to provide the amount (in $) estimated to maintain the portfolio in acceptable condition AND reduce outstanding deferred maintenance totals, as articulated in the real property portfolio strategy. Evidence must include supporting documentation demonstrating how the estimated expenditures were calculated (e.g. summary of life-cycle projections by asset type, summary of asset decisions for all assets in the portfolio, the implementation plan section of the real property portfolio strategy).

TBS will extract financial data (Current Replacement Value) from the Directory of Federal Real Property after the November 30, 2022, attestation deadline.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Directory of Federal Real Property

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex B (if applicable)

Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments
4.1.3 (all subsections)

Directive on the Management of Real Property
4.2.6 Maintaining the physical performance and functionality of real property

Rationale

This question provides TBS and Deputy Heads with data that demonstrates whether the organization is reducing or increasing the total amount of outstanding deferred maintenance.

Outstanding deferred maintenance is a financial liability and may jeopardize program or service delivery as real property assets underperform and/or fail. A reduction demonstrates best value to the Crown, as deferred work is more costly due to inflation and because the assets will deteriorate faster than life-cycle forecasts predict without timely maintenance, potentially increasing the scope and duration of the required work.

Analyzed in conjunction with the data from Q6, this question identifies the true growth or reduction of total deferred maintenance in a given fiscal year by enabling direct comparison between the rate of investment into existing deferred maintenance and the rate of required investments that have been deferred into the future.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

This value is expected to be a percentage that is large enough to offset any new work that is deferred out of the assessment period, resulting in an overall reduction of total outstanding deferred maintenance. When analyzed in conjunction with data from Q6, an overall reduction of total outstanding deferred maintenance is expected.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Rate of investment into deferred maintenance = (Total expenditures on deferred work / Deferred maintenance total as reported in the DFRP) * 100. The result may be a negative value.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Departments and agencies to provide the amount expended (in $) on work that was deferred prior to 2021-22. Crown-owned assets only. Evidence must include supporting documentation detailing the deferred work that was initiated or completed during the assessment period along with total expenditures.

Evidence must identify how long the work was considered deferred before it was funded and executed. This information should be included in the real property portfolio strategy.

Financial data (Estimated deferred maintenance total) will be extracted by TBS from the Directory of Federal Real Property after the November 30, 2022 attestation deadline.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Directory of Federal Real Property

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex B (if applicable)

Directive on the Management of Real Property
4.2.6 Maintaining the physical performance and functionality of real property

Rationale

The question provides TBS and Deputy Heads with data that demonstrates whether the organization is reducing or increasing the total amount of outstanding deferred maintenance.

Outstanding deferred maintenance is a financial liability and may jeopardize program or service delivery as real property assets underperform and/or fail. A reduction demonstrates best value to the Crown, as deferred maintenance is more costly due to inflation and because the assets will deteriorate faster than life-cycle forecasts predict without timely maintenance, potentially increasing the scope and duration of the required work.

Analyzed in conjunction with the data from Q5, this question identifies the true growth or reduction of total deferred maintenance in a given fiscal year by enabling direct comparison between the rate of investment into existing deferred maintenance and the rate of required investments that have been deferred into the future. Results will enable organizations to adjust the level of investment in real property assets as needed.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

The expected result is 0% or lower. Such a result would indicate that no new work was deferred out of the assessment period suggesting a sustainable funding model and sound strategic planning. Analyzed in conjunction with data from Q5, an overall reduction of total outstanding deferred maintenance is expected.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

The amount (in $) of projected deferred maintenance that was added to the department’s existing total of deferred maintenance will be divided by the total value of deferred maintenance (in $) reported in the DFRP. This result is multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage to show any reduction or growth in total outstanding deferred maintenance. The result may be a negative value.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Departments and agencies are to provide a detailed list of work for Crown-owned real property assets that should have been initiated and/or completed during the assessment period but were deferred into the future. This list must include total estimated costs for the deferred work. This data should be included as part of the implementation plan within the real property portfolio strategy.

TBS will extract financial data (estimated deferred maintenance total) from the Directory of Federal Real Property after the November 30, 2022 attestation deadline.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Directory of Federal Real Property

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex B (if applicable)

Directive on the Management of Real Property
4.2.6 Maintaining the physical performance and functionality of real property

Rationale

This question builds on the 2020 Speech from the Throne and existing mandate commitments to increase the diversity of bidders, including small businesses and businesses led by Indigenous Peoples, and to improve the capacity of Indigenous businesses to compete for government contracts. The Government of Canada is committed to increasing the participation and growth of Indigenous businesses in federal procurement and to improving the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous communities. As of spring 2022 departments will begin being measured for their progress towards the 5% target for procurement from Indigenous businesses according to their phase of the initiative. Their results for question 7 will help to assess their level of readiness for this new policy requirement and to provide departments with a clearer sense of their progress relative to other departments, as well as to provide them with best practices and strategies from other departments and agencies.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

It is expected that departments or agencies will receive a Medium result. All departments will have taken concrete and measurable steps to advance economic empowerment of Indigenous businesses, building on the work and progress outlined in last year’s results. Departments will more frequently have formal framework and strategies that influence a wider range of sectors and teams within their procurement function and work to both identify areas for improvement and build on lessons learned.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Number of elements supporting the development of a departmental procurement plan for procurements with Indigenous businesses to increased procurement with Indigenous Businesses, divided by 5 (the total number of elements requested - see Evidence Requirements for Question 7 below), multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage.

• HIGH = 80% - 100% 
• MEDIUM = 40% - 79% 
• LOW = 0% - 34% 

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

• Engagements and/or consultations with Indigenous peoples or non-business organizations
• Market research activities to determine information on market capacity of Indigenous businesses (e.g. types of expertise, the volume of business that Indigenous firms could support, location areas that Indigenous business can participate in, or certifications)
• Departmental procurement policy or framework for procurement with Indigenous businesses or to further economic empowerment and increase diversity in potential suppliers
• Professional development framework or other tools to build internal capacity to engage with and provide opportunities to Indigenous businesses
• Plans or strategies to incentivize Indigenous participation or provide benefits that help to provide economic empowerment and to develop capacity in Indigenous businesses through procurement processes (such as requirements for Indigenous participation plans / Indigenous benefits plans or equivalent.)

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

To assess how often an organization is using internal competitive procurement instruments based on value (on transactions above $25K). Competitive procurement instruments encourage more bidders, better prices, reduce risk and are a sign of a healthy procurement function. This information benefits TBS and Deputy Heads as it provides an assessment of the departments’ capacity to contract competitively from a dollar value metric. Whenever feasible, a competitive process should be followed to establish best value and price and to assure that a reasonable and representative number of suppliers are given an opportunity to bid.

TBS recognizes that there are cases where contracts must be non-competitively solicited and as such, departments are welcome to submit evidence that provides context to their competitive contracting statistics.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

• The target is 90%. TBS recognizes that there are cases where contracts must be non-competitively solicited and as such, expect an average of roughly 80%

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1 2021 – March 31 2022

Calculation Method

TBS ASAS will calculate the result from proactively disclosed contracts sourced from the open government portal.

What is the total value of original competitive contracts over $25K awarded (excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers)? (Numerator for Q9)

What is the total value of all original contracts over $25K awarded (both competitive and non-competitive, excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers)? (Denominator for Q9)

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

• Contracting data will be sourced from the Open Government Portal by TBS ASAS.
• Departments may submit documentation to ZZPDCDC@tbs-sct.gc.ca that adds context to the department’s competitive contracting statistic.
• Such documentation should detail:
  • Justification (such as market research and analysis) as to why large dollar value contracts were required to be non-competitively solicited and;
  • The calculation of how these large dollar value non-competitively solicited contracts skewed the department’s competitive procurement statistic from a value perspective.

Data collection Method

TBS to extract data from the Open Government Portal

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Treasury Board Contracting Policy, Section 2

Rationale

To assess how often an organization is using internal competitive procurement instruments based on number of contracts (on transactions above $25K). Competitive procurement instruments encourage more bidders, better prices, reduce risk and are a sign of a healthy procurement function. This information benefits TBS and Deputy Heads as it provides an assessment of the departments’ capacity to contract competitively from a dollar value metric. Whenever feasible, a competitive process should be followed to establish best value and price and to assure that a reasonable and representative number of suppliers are given an opportunity to bid.

TBS recognizes that there are cases where contracts must be non-competitively solicited and as such, departments are welcome to submit evidence that provides context to their competitive contracting statistics.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

The target is 85%. While the goal is to see competitive procurements make up as large a percentage of contracts as possible, TBS recognizes that there are cases where contracts must be non-competitively solicited and as such, expect an average of roughly 70%.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1 2021 – March 31 2022

Calculation Method

TBS ASAS will calculate the result from proactively disclosed contracts sourced from the open government portal.

What is the total number of original competitive contracts over $25K awarded (excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers)? (Numerator for Q9)

What is the total number of all original contracts over $25K awarded (both competitive and non-competitive, excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers)? (Denominator for Q9)

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

• Insert detailed evidence requirements

Data collection Method

Contracting data will be sourced from the Open Government Portal by TBS ASAS.

Departments may submit documentation to ZZPDCDC@tbs-sct.gc.ca that adds context to the department’s competitive contracting statistic.

Such documentation should detail:

• Justification (such as market research and analysis) as to why large dollar value contracts were required to be non-competitively solicited and;
• The calculation of how these large dollar value non-competitively solicited contracts skewed the department’s competitive procurement statistic from a value perspective.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Treasury Board Contracting Policy, Section 2

Rationale

• As per the Greening Government Strategy, the federal government is transitioning to net-zero carbon and climate-resilient operations, while also reducing environmental impacts beyond carbon, including on waste, water and biodiversity.
• The Government of Canada’s operations will be net-zero emissions by 2050 including:
  • government-owned and leased real property
  • mobility: fleets, business travel and commuting
  • procurement of goods and services
  • national safety and security operations
• To implement net-zero in real property and fleet operations, the federal government will reduce absolute Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions for real property and conventional fleet by 40% by 2025
• Advancing greening government is identified as a key priority in the January 2021 Mandate letter to the President of the Treasury Board
• The Cabinet-approved Greening Government Strategy commits to continue to align relevant government operations policies to further incorporate greening and climate resilience
• Inclusion in MAF ensures there is Deputy Head oversight to achieve the net-zero by 2050 target, while minimizing the reporting burden by using already available data

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

• Net zero emissions from real property and conventional fleet by 2050.
• To implement net-zero in real property and fleet operations, the federal government will reduce GHG emissions for real property and conventional fleet by 40% by 2025

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Total greenhouse gas emissions for the department’s real property and conventional fleet for 2020-2021 compared to baseline emissions from 2005-06. This data is collected through the annual Greening Government reporting template. The percentage reduction is calculated by the Centre for Greening Government, communicated back to reporting departments and published annually.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data source: 27 departments report on their real property and conventional fleet greenhouse gas emissions through an annual GHG Inventory call-out from the Centre for Greening Government. This is published on a federal Inventory webpage.

Date of data extraction: TBS issues the reporting call-out in spring and validates data over the summer. Validated data for 2021-2022 will be available by December 2022.

Data collection Method

TBS will use the annual departmental GHG Inventory submitted in Spring 2022

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Greening Government Strategy

Rationale

The deputy head is responsible and accountable for investment decision-making at the department. They may delegate decision-making authority to committees or individuals, depending on the departmental context and the risk, complexity, and number of investment decisions to be made. To support this decision-making, departments must have reporting and controls that are commensurate with the risk and complexity of their investment decisions.

The Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments lays out the expected results that:

• Decisions are based on an assessment of full life-cycle costs and demonstrate best value and sound stewardship (sub-theme 2).
• Governance and oversight are effective (sub-theme 3).
• Integrated and collaborative practices are in place (sub-theme 4).

To support these expectations, under the Policy deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that:

• 4.1.3.4 Investment decisions are informed by timely and accurate performance information.
• 4.1.4 Information is available to enable performance measurement and reporting related to the state and management of investments and to support planning, budgeting, and accounting for allocating resources.

Further, Senior Designated Officials (SDOs) in each of the domains subordinate to the Policy, including materiel management, real property (including accommodations), project management, and procurement, must ensure that performance data and reporting is available to support evidence-based, integrated decision-making.

• Directive on the Management of Materiel 3.2.2, 4.1
• Directive on the Management of Real Property 3.2.2, 4.1
• Directive on the Management of Procurement 3.2.2, 4.1
• Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes 3.2.3, 4.1

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Target: Meets expectations: Department provided evidence for all key domains** identified in their departmental investment plan and consolidated* performance information incorporating all key domains**.

Departments will select one of the four (4) options provided and must supply evidence to support that response. This will form the numerator of the calculation method.

TBS will review the department’s most recently submitted departmental investment plan to determine the number of key domains** employed by the department. This will form the denominator of the calculation method.

Departments will be compared from year-to-year to determine if they have regressed or improved.

Performance information is a vital part of informed decision-making. Departments that can present this information to the key decision makers and, in a consolidated manner, to support department-level decision making, will increase the likelihood that the department will have the assets and services in place to support their mandate and program delivery for Canadians. They will also help to ensure that investment decisions demonstrate best value and sound stewardship of public resources, taking into account the life-cycle costs of those assets and services.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

2021-2022

Calculation Method

Departments will be assessed based on their response (numerator) and on the number of key domains** they have described in their most recently submitted departmental investment plan (denominator).

For example,

• If a department describes the use of procurement management, project management, materiel management, and digital investments in their investment plan (4 of the key domains**), but only provides evidence for project management, they will have significant gaps (1/5).
• If the same department provides evidence for procurement, project management, and digital investments but not for materiel management nor any consolidated* performance information, they will have room for improvement (3/5).
• If the same department has reporting for the 4 key domains** and fully consolidated* reporting, they have met the expectations for this MAF cycle (5/5).
• Note, in assessing departments, *consolidated performance information is calculated as a +1 for the denominator to allow for measurement. In the example above, the department has a 5 in the denominator due to
  • +1 procurement
  • +1 project management
  • +1 materiel management
  • +1 digital investments
  • +1 consolidated* investment planning

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Four (4) pieces of evidence will be required to support the selected response:

• Evidence 1: Sufficient examples of domain-specific and consolidated investment performance reports provided to decision-makers in 2021-22 to support the department’s selected response.
• Evidence 2: Record(s) of Decision, or other records such emails, that show that each report provided as Evidence 1 was considered by the appropriate decision-maker on a specific date.
• Evidence 3: A documented procedure, or portion of the departmental investment plan or investment management framework, that details the requirements and the expected frequency of the performance reporting in at least the examples provided in Evidence 1 and 2.
• Evidence 4: The most recently submitted departmental investment plan will be assessed by TBS to determine the denominator for the calculation. There is no need for the department to submit this evidence.

Notes:

• Evidence 1: Example performance report(s).
  • The example performance report(s) must be evidence for all of domains indicated in the department’s response. For example:
    • If the department selects response b), then two (2) or three (3) example reports must be provided.
  • The information provided in Evidence 1 should be clearly aligned with the documented procedure provided in Evidence 3.
• Evidence 2: Record(s) of review.
  • Records of review must be provided for each example performance report provided as Evidence 1.
  • The records can be Records of Decision, emails, or other records that show that the report was considered by the appropriate decision-maker on a specific date.
  • The information provided in Evidence 2 should be clearly aligned with the documented procedure provided in Evidence 3.
• Evidence 3: Documented procedure.
  • The procedure must at least describe the example reporting provided in Evidence 1. For example:
    • If the department selects response d), the procedure should explain the example reporting and the decision makers for each independent domain and for the example consolidated reporting provided.
  • The procedure must clearly explain each decision maker and their decision-making role. In the case of a hierarchy, only the ultimate decision-maker need to be explained in detail.
  • The procedure must explain how the performance information is aligned with the decision-making role and with the investments for which the decision-maker is responsible.
  • Depending on the department and the domain, decision-making may be centralized in a committee or an individual or it may be shared among several. The procedure must at least explain the reporting and the decision makers provided as examples in Evidence 1.
  • If there is a hierarchy of committees or multiple individuals responsible for a single domain or for consolidated decision-making, a diagram showing this relationship can be provided to support the procedure. In the case of a hierarchy, only the ultimate decision makers and their decision-making role need to be explained in detail.
  • If the departmental investment plan most recently submitted to Treasury Board provides adequate detail to fulfill the Evidence 3 requirement, with specific detail on the example reports and decision-makers provided in Evidence 1 and 2, the department can instead provide a document clearly noting the specific section references in the investment plan, rather than a separate procedure document.
• General:
  • If multiple documents are being provided for any of the three (3) required pieces of evidence, the documents can be merged into a single file and submitted as a PDF. This merged file must include a cover sheet which clearly identifies and delineates the individual documents.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Investment performance reporting should be commensurate to the significance, risk and complexity of assets and services employed in support the department’s program delivery, so it is difficult to compare reporting across departments. It may be possible to compare a department’s progression from year-to-year.

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Yes, but only at the individual department level.

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

This data supports a publicly reported program level indicator.

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments
4.1.3.4, 4.1.4

Directive on the Management of Procurement
3.2.2, 4.1

Directive on the Management of Materiel
3.2.2, 4.1

Directive on the Management of Real Property
3.2.2, 4.1

Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes
3.2.3, 4.1

Rationale

This indicator will be used to assess whether organizations have effective governance and oversight mechanisms in place to mitigate departmental procurement risks (e.g., entering into risky contracts or contracts that provide poor value for money). TBS uses this information to better understand the function and operation of departmental and agency internal procurement review processes and to identify best practices associated with these processes. Strong governance and oversight ensure that departments and agencies can appropriately manage their varied procurements and that those people responsible for the function have effective and appropriate information on ongoing and upcoming procurements. Ensuring a strong oversight and active contract review function allows for continuous improvement and the sharing of lessons learned, which will help to ensure greater success in procurement going forward.

*This information will be collected until departments fully implement the requirements for procurement management outlined in the new Directive on the Management of Procurement (to be assessed 12 months post effective date).

The question also assesses whether organizations have mechanisms in place to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the procurement processes as per the Policy on Green Procurement.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results for Question 12

• Departments and agencies are expected to have a target of Strong. Departments will have a governance and oversight framework for procurement, including for implementation of the Policy on Green Procurement. They will show some improvement in formal oversight by comparison from last year. Departments were also aware of the new Directive on the Management of Procurement which came into effect in May 2021, and may have begun to renew or update their governance and oversight mechanisms to better align with the new directive.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Number of elements supporting the department or agency’s governance and oversight of procurement, divided by 7 (the total number of elements requested - see Evidence Requirements for Question 1 below), multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage.

• Strong = 70% - 100%
• Medium = 30% - 69%
• Developing = 0% - 29%

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

No half points for any of the below elements:

• Appropriate governance committee(s) are in place;
• Governance facilitates collaboration between contracting authorities and business owners, throughout the investment-planning process and procurement life cycle;
• Governance facilitates effective information and support to the Deputy Head regarding the procurement function;
• Strategies for active review of contracts to identify best practices and lessons learned;
• Governance includes oversight, planning and reporting mechanisms that facilitate an effective challenge function, management oversight, and audit;
• A system to track procurements with environmental considerations;
• Documentation that demonstrates how the Policy on Green Procurement is implemented in the organization (internal policies, review committee Terms of Reference, Procurement planning tools)

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Shared Services Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Treasury Board Contracting Policy, Sections 11.1 and 9.1.3.

Directive on the Management of Procurement,
Sections 4.1.2.2, 4.2.4.

Policy on Green Procurement

Rationale

Ensuring the sound stewardship and management of departmental assets and acquired services relies on a capable workforce. Under Policy on Planning and Management of Investments, Deputy Head designated Senior Designated Officials (SDOs) are responsible for the capacity, competency, and knowledge of the department’s workforce in project and programme management, procurement, real property, and materiel management.

For this MAF exercise, the question provides an overview of an organization’s approach to managing its Acquired Services and Assets workforce across two functional communities: procurement, and programme and project management. TBS uses this information to identify functional community needs and best practices and inform Deputy Heads or Senior Designated Officials and the TBS-Office of the Comptroller General on whether strong functional workforce management regimes are in place.

Category

• Policy Compliance
• Performance
• Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Expected results are a medium across the two functional communities the evaluation will apply (Procurement, and Project and Programme Management). Departments will have evidence of workforce planning aligned to functional competencies and mandatory training, appropriate to their departmental authorities and size, to ensure procurement and project management personnel meet expected policy results.

Assessed Organizations

See Annex A

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022 *policy in full effect as of July 2021

Calculation Method

Departments will be assessed using the following matrix:  

Area of Assessment	Procurement Community	Project and Programme Management Community
Training	1 point	1 point
Competencies	1 point	1 point
Job & Position Management	1 point	1 point
Staffing and Employee Integration	1 point	1 point
Employee Performance, Learning, Development and Recognition	1 point	1 point
TOTAL	5 points	5 points

Departments will be awarded 1 point by providing evidence for each area of assessment within each community for a maximum score of 5 per community.

All points will be added and departments will be rated based on the following weighted criteria:

• High = 9-10 points. The department has covered all 5 assessment areas and its workforce has developed competencies required to comply with policy requirements and contribute to broader policy objectives.
• Medium = 6-8 points. While the department’s work force has inconsistencies in the development of competencies across the evaluated communities, its workforce is equipped to comply with policy requirements and contribute to broader policy objectives.
• Low = 0-5 points. The department does not have a consistent integrated framework for the development of competencies across the four communities, making it challenging to comply with policy requirements and contribute to broader policy objectives.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

• Training – Functional specialists and the status of their mandatory training are tracked.
• Competencies - TBS functional competencies have been adopted for each function.
• Job & Position Management - Function-specific standardized job descriptions are in place.
• Staffing and Employee Integration - HR plans are in place for the recruitment, retention, and promotion of function-specific workforce.
• Employee Performance, Learning, Development and Recognition – HR plans are in place for the recognition and management of function-specific talent.

Data collection Method

Documentary evidence

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

*Custodial Departments

Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

**Non-custodial departments:

Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada

Annex B (if applicable)

Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments

Including under

• 4.1.1: Designating a senior official or senior officials
• 4.1.1: […] responsible for supporting the deputy head’s accountability for all requirements under this policy, including the capacity, competency, and knowledge of the department’s workforce in project and programme management, procurement, real property, and materiel management