MAF 2018 to 2019 management of acquired services and assets methodology
On this page
Methodology Overview
In this section
The sound management of acquired services and assets touches on several interrelated operational areas in the Government of Canada, including the planning and management of:
- investments
- projects
- procurement
- real property
- materiel assets
The 2018-19 methodology is:
- largely based on the requirements of five existing policies
- expected to undergo significant transformation to reflect the requirements of reset policy instruments proposed for TB consideration in the coming year
The 11 departments assessed in this Area of Management (AoM) are among the top spenders on acquired services and assets.
Objectives
The overall objectives of the Acquired Services and Assets Sector (ASAS) methodology of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year are to:
- assess compliance and monitor progress toward the implementation of key policy requirements under the Treasury Board Policy Framework for the Management of Assets and Acquired Services to ensure value for money and sound stewardship of federal assets
- provide deputy heads with a view of their organization’s investment planning, project management, procurement, real property and materiel management practices, including comparisons with other organizations
- improve oversight and management practices in departments and agencies
- encourage conversations within departments and agencies and with other organizations
- support the government’s strategic direction for the planning and management of investments
Use of Management Accountability Framework (MAF) results
MAF results on acquired services and assets for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year will provide information to the following 3 key audiences:
- deputy heads will use this information to:
- identify current and emerging issues with respect to how assets and acquired services are being managed and improved within their organizations
- enable fulfillment of comptrollership responsibilities related to investment planning, project management, real property, procurement and materiel
- the acquired services and assets functional communities will use the information to:
- improve policy compliance and management practices and lead to change within their respective organizations
- encourage conversations within the respective acquired services and assets communities and within the Office of the Comptroller General regarding the sharing of best practices and the identification of government-wide challenges
- the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) will use the information to:
- enable policy centres to monitor trends and identify gaps in policy compliance across departments and agencies relating to government priorities
- support TBS program sectors and departments and agencies with evidence-based analysis of performance
- communicate priorities and expectations relating to the management of assets and acquired services to departments and agencies
- facilitate the sharing of notable practices and identify any systemic issues that will inform the development of policy, guidance and tools
- provide information to track and communicate progress on the Government of Canada’s fixed asset review, project management strategy and procurement modernization initiatives
- Indicate the level of maturity of an organization with respect to their management practices for:
- investment planning
- project management
- procurement
- real property
- materiel
Note that the 2018 to 2019 cycle of the MAF covers the period from , to , unless otherwise indicated in individual questions.
Questionnaire
In this section
Investment Planning
Outcome(s): A systematic and comprehensive investment planning function is in place.
Question 1: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency provide an annual update on its investment plan to its minister, which includes advice on investment planning capacity, performance and resource allocation?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Investment planning is a key element of an organization’s business planning cycle and serves as the mechanism to ensure that the Government of Canada has the necessary assets and services in place to support program delivery to Canadians.
Annual updates to the investment plan:
- are an indicator that the plan is not just a static document, but is actively used and refreshed
- covers key elements of capacity, performance and resource allocation
The question assesses whether departments or agencies provide annual advice to their ministers on the effectiveness of their investment planning function.
Having a regularly updated investment plan:
- benefits all sectors of an organization
- is an indicator that a systematic and comprehensive investment-planning function is in place
The result will inform deputy heads in their oversight role and the TBS Office of the Comptroller General’s policy role.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence:
- Briefing note to minister seeking approval of annual update
- Meeting minutes from senior management committee(s) demonstrating support and approval
Document limit: 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Investment Planning: Assets and Acquired Services, subsection 3.4
Project Management
Outcome(s): Established project management best practices are adopted by the organizations to support successful project delivery.
Question 2: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency review and consider the lessons learned from past projects when undertaking the project planning and identification phase of new projects?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Project management has been identified as an area requiring management attention. Greater rigour is being imposed through the proposed Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and the associated instruments.
As a best practice, review of lessons learned at the project planning phase will enable departments and agencies to learn from and improve on past experience to ensure successful delivery of projects. This question assesses whether departments and agencies adopt this best practice by ensuring that lessons learned are not only documented, but are actively reviewed to apply process improvements to new projects at an early stage.
The MAF results will inform:
- deputy heads in their oversight role
- department or agency project managers (as a best practice)
- TBS Office of the Comptroller General in its review of the organizational project management capacity assessment (OPMCA) tool and in its policy role
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence:
To support a “yes” answer, evidence must include:
- a document (for example, an approved project management framework) demonstrating that a process is in place requiring review and consideration of lessons learned from past projects during the project planning and identification phase
- an example where specific lessons learned from past projects were considered for a new project at the planning and identification phase in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Document limit: 3
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
The organizational project management capacity assessment (OPMCA) tool includes questions about a department or agency’s approach to lessons learned, such as question 48 in the project integration management section of the tool.
Question 3: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency have an enterprise-wide strategy in place to promote and track project management training for employees involved in managing projects?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
The professionalization of the project management community is a key driver in ensuring the success of Government of Canada projects. The result will:
- inform the implementation of the Project Management Strategy
- help to ensure that all those engaged in project management are well equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to deliver projects successfully
As a best practice, organizations should ensure that staff undertaking projects have the appropriate skills and knowledge in project management.
Deputy heads will be informed about the status of project management training in their department or agency. Based on the results, the TBS Office of the Comptroller General, in its policy role, can better support the development and outreach required build and enhance government-wide capacity in this area.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence:
To support a “yes” answer, evidence must include:
- the project management training strategy that was in place at the department or agency in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
- the number of staff who completed any aspect of training outlined in the strategy for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year; examples of training could include:
- in-house project management training
- external project management training, that is, offered by an external training provider
- attendance at a project management forum or conference
Document limit: 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on the Management of Projects, subsection 6.1.5
Question 4: What percentage of your department or agency’s projects that were completed in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year were delivered on time, based on approved completion date at the time of implementation approval?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
The question validates whether departments and agencies track and monitor key project management information, such as completion of projects on time. Deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that a department- or agency-wide governance and oversight mechanism is in place to manage the initiation, planning, execution, control and closing of projects.
The assessment of results will help determine whether strategies are needed to address gaps in the organization’s project management practices, including the accuracy of the planning parameters that are used to make decisions.
The result enables deputy heads to make targeted improvements to project management practices, such as the adoption of strengthened project-planning and control techniques to increase:
- the accuracy of project schedules
- the effectiveness of controls applied during project execution
These techniques aim to ensure the successful delivery of projects within approved time frames. The result also provides the TBS Office of the Comptroller General with insights on department or agency project management practices.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
This calculation is to include only those projects completed in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year that have a total estimated cost over $1 million.
Number of projects completed prior to the planned project completion date established at the time the project first received project implementation approval
÷ Total number of projects completed
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must clearly demonstrate how the calculation methodology was followed.
Document limit: 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on the Management of Projects, subsection 6.2.1
Question 5: What percentage of your department or agency’s projects that were completed in the 2017 to 2018 were delivered on budget, based on estimated project cost at the time of implementation approval?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
The question validates whether departments and agencies track and monitor key project management information, such as the completion of projects on budget. Deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that a department- or agency-wide governance and oversight mechanism is in place to manage the initiation, planning, execution, control and closing of projects.
The assessment of results will help determine whether strategies are needed to address gaps in the organization’s project management practices, including the accuracy of the planning parameters that are used to make decisions.
The result enables deputy heads to make targeted improvements to project management practices, such as the adoption of strengthened project planning and control techniques to increase:
- the accuracy of project cost estimates
- the effectiveness of controls applied during project execution
These techniques aim to help ensure successful delivery of projects within approved budgets. The result also provides the TBS Office of the Comptroller General with insights on department or agency project management practices.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
This calculation is to include only those projects completed in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year that have a total estimated cost over $1 million.
Number of projects completed where the total cost is within the total estimated project cost established at the time the project first received project implementation approval
÷ Total number of projects completed
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must clearly demonstrate how the calculation methodology was followed.
Document limit: 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on the Management of Projects, subsection 6.2.1
Question 6: What percentage of your department or agency’s projects that were completed in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year were delivered on scope, based on the approved scope at the time of implementation approval?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
The question validates whether departments and agencies track and monitor key project management information, such as completion of projects on scope. Deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that a department- or agency-wide governance and oversight mechanism is in place to manage the initiation, planning, execution, control and closing of projects.
The assessment of results will help determine whether strategies are needed to address gaps in the organization’s project management practices, including the accuracy of the planning parameters that are used to make decisions.
The result enables deputy heads to make targeted improvements to project management practices, such as the adoption of strengthened project planning and control techniques to increase:
- the accuracy of project work breakdown structures
- the effectiveness of controls applied during project execution
These techniques aim to ensure successful delivery of projects within the approved scope. The result provides the TBS Office of the Comptroller General with insights on department or agency project management practices.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
Calculation is to include only those projects completed in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year that have a total estimated cost over $1 million.
Number of projects completed on scope where the final deliverables were consistent with the expected project outcomes established at the time the project first receive project implementation approval
÷ Total number of projects completed
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must clearly demonstrate how the calculation methodology was followed.
Document limit: 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on the Management of Projects, subsection 6.2.1
Procurement
Outcome(s): Ensure that government procurement is carried out in a manner that enhances access, competition and fairness, and that results in best value or, if appropriate, the optimal balance of overall benefits to the Crown and the Canadian people.
Question 7: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency have a system in place that was used to proactively assess and renew long-term contracts (2 years or longer) at least 1 year before their expiration?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Proper succession planning of long-term contracts ensures that:
- there are no gaps in the delivery of required goods, services or construction activities
- all alternatives are examined if required
This question assesses whether departments and agencies are effectively managing their long-term contract planning in a cost-effective manner.
TBS uses this information to better understand department and agency planning protocol for expiring contracts. This information benefits both deputy heads and TBS in:
- understanding department or agency capacity
- identifying gaps in capacity to plan for long-term contracts, specifically for critical services
TBS also uses the information to identify best practices for contract management.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The department or agency is required to provide documentation that:
- indicates whether or not the department or agency has an electronic system in place to monitor the duration of contracts and identify expiry dates
- details how the system supports proactive contract planning for long-term contracts (2 years or more) 1 year before expiry
Document limit: 4
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Contracting Policy, subsection 9.1.3
Question 8: During the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, what percentage of the department’s or agency’s proactive disclosure of contracts was reported in a timely and accurate manner?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question assesses department or agency compliance with policy requirements that reinforce an organization’s accountability for the quality of its publicly available data.
This information helps TBS:
- assess the overall quality of contracting data on the open government portal
- identify departments and agencies that may require quality assurance process improvements
This information will inform TBS and deputy heads about whether:
- a department or agency reports its proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000 accurately and transparently
- changes need to be made to department or agency procedures
The information reported on the open data portal is also used for our trade reporting and legal obligations.
Target (where applicable)
All data (100%) uploaded is in a format that is compliant with the Guidelines on Proactive Disclosure of Contracts.
Calculation method
Based on the quarterly reports of the proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000:
Number of rows that contain data in a format recommended in the Guidelines on the Proactive Disclosure of Contracts
÷ Total number of rows uploaded by the department or agency
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Quarterly reports of proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Contracting Policy, subsections 5.1.2, 5.2.3 and 5.1.6
- Canada’s priority of open government and transparency to the public
Question 9: During the 2017 calendar year, what percentage of the value of the department’s or agency’s contracts valued over $25,000 was awarded through a competitive bidding process?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Competitive procurement instruments:
- encourage more bidders
- result in better prices
- reduce risk
- are a sign of a healthy procurement function
This question:
- will assess how often an organization is using competitive procurement instruments based on value (on transactions above $25,000)
- provides information on trends at the department, agency and government levels
- informs us of the overall value of competitive contracts and is distinct from Q10
This information benefits TBS and deputy heads as it provides an assessment of the department’s or agency’s capacity to contract competitively from a dollar-value metric.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
Based on the quarterly reports of proactive disclosure of contracts above $10,000:
Original value of competitive contracts valued over $25,000 awarded
÷ Total number of projects completed
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Quarterly reports of proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2017 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Contracting Policy, section 2
Question 10: During the 2017 calendar year, what percentage of the department’s or agency’s contracts valued over $25,000 was awarded through a competitive bidding process?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Competitive procurement instruments:
- encourage more bidders
- result in better prices
- reduce risk
- are a sign of a healthy procurement function
This question:
- assesses how often an organization is using competitive procurement instruments based on the volume of contracts (on transactions above $25,000)
- informs us about the overall number of competitive contracts
This information benefits TBS and deputy heads as it provides an assessment of the department’s or agency’s capacity to contract competitively from a contract-volume metric. It also serves as a TBS internal service indicator.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
Based on the quarterly reports of proactive disclosure of contracts valued over $10,000:
Total number of original competitive contracts valued over $25,000 awarded
÷ Total number of projects completed
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Quarterly reports of proactive disclosure of contracts over $10,000
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2017 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Contracting Policy, section 2
Question 11: During the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency have a contract review committee or board in place that acted as a challenge mechanism?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To assess whether organizations have a formal challenge mechanism in place for public procurement activities.
Information collected will be used:
- as a baseline to assess how departments and agencies use internal formal challenge mechanisms
- to examine the added value of such mechanisms
TBS uses this information to:
- better understand the function and operation of department and agency internal procurement review committees
- identify the best practices associated with those committees
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Departments and agencies are required to provide the following documentation:
- terms of reference for the review committee or board
- report or summary of the standard operating procedures that the committee uses when reviewing contracts
- summaries of contract review proceedings that were provided to the deputy head
- a summary of review committee or board outcomes, such as how many contracts were denied or requested to be revised out of all contracts reviewed
Document limit: 4
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Contracting Policy, section 11.1
Procurement – Common Service Providers
Outcome(s): Common service providers deliver high levels of service to industry and clients in order to better facilitate the procurement process.
Question 12: During the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, as a common service provider, did the department or agency collect feedback from suppliers and use the responses to improve future acquisition processes?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To assess how common service providers are improving their processes and engagement with suppliers.
TBS will assess the information provided by the supplier community in developing our policies.
This information will inform TBS and deputy heads about the common service provider’s ability to manage and incorporate industry feedback into its operations. All federal procurement organizations will benefit from a common service provider that is aware of supplier concerns.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Common service providers are required to provide the following:
- a summary document that details how feedback is collected from industry
- a summary document that indicates how the information gathered is used to improve:
- processes to better support industry
- satisfaction
- a summary document of feedback that outlines key issues or concerns identified by industry
- examples of activities improved as a result of feedback from industry
Document limit: 5
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
Question 13: During the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the common service provider collect feedback from federal client organizations and use the responses to improve future acquisition processes?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To assess how common service providers are improving their processes and engagement with clients.
TBS will assess the information provided by the federal client organizations in developing our policies.
This information will inform TBS and deputy heads about the common service provider’s ability to manage and incorporate feedback from federal client organizations into its operations. All federal procurement organizations will benefit from a common service provider that is seeking to improve its acquisition processes.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Common service providers are required to provide the following:
- a summary document that details how feedback is collected from clients
- a summary document that indicates how the information gathered is used to improve:
- processes to better support clients
- satisfaction
- a summary document of feedback that outlines key issues or concerns identified by clients
- examples of activities that have improved as a result of feedback from clients
Document limit: 5
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
Question 14: During the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the common service provider set and measure the average number of days it took to deliver specific types of procurement to client organizations?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To assess whether a common service provider is taking action to monitor and improve the delivery times of procurements to clients.
TBS will assess the information to ensure that service levels are set and measured.
This information will inform TBS and deputy heads about the capacity of the common service provider to deliver procurements to federal client organizations in a timely manner.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Common service providers are required to provide the following documentation:
- a framework for the collection of statistics on service levels (specifically, the average number of days set to deliver on specific contracts)
- results achieved against service levels
- strategies developed to improve results in response to the analysis of results
Document limit: 4
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
Management of Real Property
Outcome(s): Organizations implement sustainable and cost-effective life-cycle asset management, monitor and actively manage their portfolios and implement effective life-cycle asset management.
Question 15: Between the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year and the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency review the effectiveness of its real property management framework and make changes as required?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Asset management frameworks:
- enable timely and informed decisions
- support program delivery
Strategies for effectively managing assets throughout their life cycle will ensure that program needs are being met (there is a sufficient quantity and quality of assets to support operations) while respecting government priorities (Indigenous interests, accessibility, heritage, environmental sustainability). The capacity of programs to deliver on their mandates is directly related to the sustained performance of organizational assets.
This question will examine whether departments and agencies have:
- clear accountability and decision-making structures
- authorities and responsibilities that are appropriate to organizational needs and capacity
- systems that provide relevant financial and performance information
This question will also focus on whether the asset management frameworks were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that they are relevant and effective for the operations and plans of the organization.
This question will inform TBS and deputy heads about whether the organization has reviewed or updated the effectiveness of its real property management framework over the last 2 fiscal years. Once they are completed, the reviews will benefit organizations and serve as a foundation for strategic portfolio planning.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence:
- must be relevant to the 2016 to 2017 and 2017 to 2018 fiscal years
- should demonstrate the review of or updates to:
- governance
- management procedures
- practices
- systems
- committee decisions
- updated asset performance information
- monitoring
- may take the form of:
- entire documents or sections of the organization’s framework (including before and after comparisons, or crosswalks)
- relevant emails
- meeting minutes
- approved changes
- records of decision
Document limit: maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)
Period of assessment: the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year and the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.1
Question 16: In accordance with the Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP) certification deadline of December 31, 2018, did the department or agency have complete and accurate real property information?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Accurate, reliable and complete information on real property and materiel assets is a basic requirement of a good asset management regime. This question will identify whether the department or agency is in compliance with the Policy on Management of Real Property in its reporting to the DFRP.
Organizations that have a complete and accurate inventory of their real property portfolio demonstrate that yearly updates are being conducted. The inventory, which includes building condition, enables organizations to make informed decisions on real property investments.
This question will inform TBS and deputy heads about whether the organization met the certification deadline for this year.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.1
- Reporting Standard on Real Property, part 1
Question 17: What was the replacement value of the department’s or agency’s Crown-owned real property assets for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This information will enable TBS and departments and agencies to determine the rate of their investment in the repair, maintenance and recapitalization of assets.
The rate of reinvestment will indicate whether adequate resources are being dedicated to the asset portfolio. This information will inform TBS and deputy heads about:
- whether departments and agencies have developed methodologies for determining the replacement value of their asset portfolio
- the organization’s estimated replacement value of Crown-owned assets
- when the replacement value was last updated
The replacement value of Crown-owned assets is essential to estimating the minimum annual investment required for the asset portfolio.
Target (where applicable)
Investment in the repair, maintenance and recapitalization of assets should be a minimum of 4% of the replacement cost.
Calculation method
Amount spent on repair, maintenance and recapitalization
÷ Replacement value × 100
= Recapitalization rate
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must:
- identify the total estimated replacement cost of real property assets
- demonstrate or describe how the replacement cost was calculated or estimated
- identify when the replacement value (cost) was last updated (or calculated)
Note: Replacement value includes structures but excludes land.
The evidence data must be current (within the last 5 years).
Document limit: maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.4
- Guide to the Management of Real Property, subsection 3.2.2
Question 18: How much was spent in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year on the repair, maintenance and recapitalization of Crown-owned assets to ensure the integrity of those assets?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will:
- identify the annual rate of investment (recapitalization rate) in Crown-owned assets under the custodial responsibility of departments and agencies.
- determine whether departments and agencies are adequately investing in their assets
- inform TBS and deputy heads about how much money was spent during the fiscal year on the repair, maintenance, and recapitalization of the organization’s Crown-owned assets
- enable TBS to calculate an organization’s recapitalization rate
Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
Investment in the repair, maintenance and recapitalization of assets should be a minimum of 4% of the replacement cost.
Calculation method
Amount spent on repair, maintenance and recapitalization
÷ Replacement value × 100
= Recapitalization rate
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must:
- identify how much money was spent on repair and maintenance of real property assets in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
- demonstrate or describe what was included in the repair and maintenance conducted
- identify how much money was spent on the recapitalization of assets in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
- demonstrate or describe what was included in the recapitalization conducted
Document limit: maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.4
- Guide to the Management of Real Property, subsection 3.2.2
Question 19: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency develop and/or update the acquisition, maintenance and disposal strategies for its real property portfolio, that consider asset performance information, ongoing program needs, value for money and that reflect government priorities and legislation?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To ensure that real property strategies exist and comply with policy, other related government priorities and legislation, such as the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the Greening Government Strategy.
Departments and agencies are required to develop strategies that:
- achieve value for money and sound stewardship
- reduce the government’s greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following phases of asset management:
- acquisition
- operating and maintenance
- disposition
Cost savings should result from managing on a portfolio basis rather than on an asset-by-asset basis.
A response to this question will inform TBS and deputy heads about whether the organization has updated its real property strategies for acquisition, use or disposition of Crown-owned assets during the fiscal year, as appropriate.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must include the organization’s strategies for real property acquisitions, operations and maintenance, and dispositions.
The evidence should:
- be relevant to the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
- identify and describe distinct real property strategies for each of the following:
- acquisitions
- operations and maintenance
- dispositions
- identify when each strategy was developed
- identify which strategies were newly developed during the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year (and explain why)
- identify whether updates to existing strategies were made (and explain the updates)
The evidence should demonstrate how each of the department’s or agency’s real property strategies consider each of the following:
- asset performance information
- ongoing needs
- value for money
The evidence should demonstrate how real property strategies respond to government priorities and legislation that involve real property, including the:
- Greening Government Strategy
- Federal Sustainable Development Strategy
- National Housing Strategy
- Federal Lands Initiative
- Federal Science and Technology Infrastructure Initiative
- accessibility
- heritage considerations
- any other applicable priorities or legislation
The evidence should identify whether real property strategies are included in the department’s or agency’s most recent Treasury Board–approved investment plan. The organization should identify the investment plan, and TBS should provide and review the investment plan.
Document limit: maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
Question 20: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency inform its real property decisions using performance information from all of the following areas:
- physical condition
- functionality
- use
- financial performance
- greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
The Policy on Management of Real Property requires that deputy heads monitor policy compliance and ensure that management practices and controls are in place so that they can act expeditiously when control failures are identified. This question will indicate whether performance data is being used to support decision-making in real property.
The assessment will determine policy compliance and assess whether management practices and controls are in place so that action can be taken quickly when control failures are identified.
This question will inform TBS and deputy heads about whether:
- the organization has real property performance indicators in place
- performance data is used to inform real property decisions
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence should:
- identify the department’s or agency’s performance indicators in all 5 areas for real property assets:
- physical condition
- functionality
- use
- financial performance
- greenhouse gas emissions
- demonstrate established processes and procedures related to real property performance measurement
- include performance measurement information (results or data) for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal in all 5 areas for real property assets
- demonstrate the use of the real property performance measurement information (results or data) for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year in the department’s or agency’s decision-making
The evidence may include:
- relevant internal policy or guidance documents that may include:
- real property performance indicators
- assessment or reporting templates
- performance measurement processes or procedures
- explanations for decision-making or governance structures
- reports or other documents that capture performance information from the assessment year
- relevant committee approvals or records of decision
Document limit: maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
- Guide to the Management of Real Property, subsection 6.2
- Greening Government Strategy
- Federal Sustainable Development Strategy
Question 21: As of , what percentage of the building floor area in the department’s or agency’s (Crown-owned) real property portfolio was rated in good condition?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will identify the proportion of Crown-owned real property assets that are rated as being in good condition. This key performance indicator measures the health and condition of a department’s or agency’s real property portfolio.
Departments and agencies should assess the condition of their real property assets to estimate the remaining physical life of the assets and their compliance in areas such as accessibility, heritage, and environmental protection. Asset condition information allows departments and agencies to make decisions about real property investment based on the state of their portfolio.
Responses to Q21 through to Q25 will inform TBS and deputy heads about the distribution of the organization’s building floor area based on condition. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property subsection 6.1.3
Question 22: As of , what percentage of the building floor area in the department’s or agency’s (Crown-owned) real property portfolio was rated in fair condition?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will identify the proportion of Crown-owned real property assets that are rated as being in fair condition. This key performance indicator measures the health and condition of a department’s or agency’s real property portfolio.
Departments and agencies should assess the condition of their real property assets to estimate the remaining physical life of the assets and their compliance in areas such as accessibility, heritage, and environmental protection. Asset condition information allows departments and agencies to make decisions about real property investment based on the state of their portfolio.
Responses to Q21 through to Q25 will inform TBS and deputy heads about the distribution of the organization’s building floor area based on condition. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property subsection 6.1.3
Question 23: As of December 31, 2018, what percentage of the building floor area in the department’s or agency’s (Crown-owned) real property portfolio was rated in poor condition?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will identify the proportion of Crown-owned real property assets that are rated as being in poor condition. This key performance indicator measures the health and condition of a department’s or agency’s real property portfolio.
Departments and agencies should assess the condition of their real property assets to estimate the remaining physical life of the assets and their compliance in areas such as accessibility, heritage and environmental protection. Asset condition information allows departments and agencies to make decisions about real property investment based on the state of their portfolio.
Responses to Q21 through to Q25 will inform TBS and deputy heads about the distribution of the organization’s building floor area based on condition. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
Question 24: As of December 31, 2018, what percentage of the building floor area in the department’s or agency’s (Crown-owned) real property portfolio was rated in critical condition?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will identify the proportion of Crown-owned real property assets that are rated as being in critical condition. This key performance indicator measures the health and condition of a department’s or agency’s real property portfolio.
Departments and agencies should assess the condition of their real property assets to estimate the remaining physical life of the assets, and their compliance in areas such as accessibility, heritage and environmental protection. Asset condition information allows departments and agencies to make decisions about real property investment based on the state of their portfolio.
Responses to Q21 through to Q25 will inform TBS and deputy heads about the distribution of the organization’s building floor area based on condition. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
Question 25: As of December 31, 2018, what percentage of building floor area in the department’s or agency’s (Crown-owned) real property portfolio was rated in unknown condition?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
This question will identify the proportion of Crown-owned real property assets that are rated as being in unknown condition. This key performance indicator measures the health and condition of a department or agency’s real property portfolio.
Departments and agencies should assess the condition of their real property assets to estimate the remaining physical life of the assets. If a significant proportion of a department’s or agency’s portfolio is rated as being in “unknown” condition, this would indicate that more effort is required to understand the portfolio in order to support effective, evidence-based strategies.
Responses to Q21 through to Q25 will inform TBS and deputy heads about the distribution of the organization’s building floor area based on condition. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction:
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2018 calendar year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
Question 26: What is the utilization of general-purpose office space as measured by average rentable square metres per full-time equivalent (FTE) in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Utilization refers to how intensively real property is used. A report on utilization helps departments and agencies determine if space needs are being met efficiently.
General-purpose space is managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) on behalf of departments and agencies through its role as a common service provider. The financial performance of real property is assessed against the actual and estimated life-cycle costs related to its administration and use. The amount of space per FTE in any given year should decrease as the 2012 revised office standards are implemented across the government portfolio.
This question will inform TBS and deputy heads about how efficiently an organization’s general-purpose space, which is assigned for their operations, is managed and coordinated with PSPC. Year over year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
PSPC to provide total rentable square metres of general-purpose office space and the number of FTEs.
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction:
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to answer
Evidence: n/a
Document limit: n/a
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- n/a
Question 27: What percentage of your department’s or agency’s building floor space was vacant as of ?
For buildings in the custody of the department or agency only
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rational
Organizations are expected to maximize the utilization of their real property portfolios based on program requirements. Departments and agencies require investment strategies that reflect their goals and the government’s management agenda. Departments and agencies should strive to ensure that inventory is optimized and supports program needs.
Utilization refers to how intensively the real property is used. A report on utilization helps departments and agencies determine if space needs are being met efficiently.This question will inform TBS and deputy heads about an organization’s vacancy rate.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must include the calculation of a department’s or agency’s total vacant building floor space as of
, for all buildings in the custody of the department or agency.
The evidence should include:
- utilization reports
- vacancy calculations
- inventories of vacant space and buildings
- relevant explanations
Document limit: maximum of 2 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).
Period of assessment:
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
- Guide to the Management of Real Property, subsection 4.2
Question 28: If there were any efforts to reduce the vacancy rate, what was the change in square metres across the department’s or agency’s real property portfolio in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year?
For buildings in the custody of the department or agency only
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Utilization refers to how intensively the real property is used. A report on utilization helps departments and agencies determine if space needs are being met efficiently.
Organizations are expected to:
- maximize the utilization of their real property portfolios based on program requirements
- develop investment strategies in support of program requirements, goals and the government’s management agenda
Reducing vacancy is a way to help optimize the portfolio.
This question will enable deputy heads and TBS to learn about whether their organization is strategizing to reduce vacancy and to what extent this reduction has been achieved from 1 year to the next. The question also provides insight about factors that may pose challenges or prevent vacancy from being reduced. Year-over-year results will enable trend analysis.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence must include the calculation and result of the change in total vacant building floor space between , and .
The calculation and result should be shown in square metres, for all buildings in the custody of the department or agency.
The evidence may include:
- utilization reports
- vacancy calculations
- inventories of vacant space and buildings
- relevant explanations
Document limit: maximum of 3 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).
Period of assessment: , compared with .
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Real Property, subsection 6.1.3
- Guide to the Management of Real Property, subsection 4.2
Management of Materiel
Outcome(s):
- Sustainable and cost-effective life-cycle asset management.
- Organizations monitor and actively manage their portfolios.
- Effective life-cycle asset management.
- Responsive to government priorities and mandate.
Question 29: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency review the effectiveness of its materiel management framework and make changes as required?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To determine whether departments and agencies are making timely, informed materiel management decisions based on their most current framework in order to allow for:
- appropriate accountability and decision-making structures
- clearly communicated authorities
- segregated responsibilities
- appropriate policies and practices
- appropriate management, financial, and materiel information systems that support informed decision-making and allow for adequate performance monitoring
Asset management frameworks enable timely and informed decisions and support program delivery. This question is also an indicator that is part of the TBS Departmental Results Framework this year.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Evidence may include updates, or approved changes to governance, management procedures, practices, committee decisions, updated asset performance information and monitoring.
If the answer to Q29 is “yes,” provide a high level summary describing the framework you currently have in place.
If the answer to Q29 is “no,” provide an explanation in the Organization Comments section.
Document limit: maximum of 6
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Materiel, subsections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1
- GC priority: “Improve the use of evidence in program evaluation”
Question 30: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, did the department or agency have complete and accurate materiel asset information?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To ensure that departments and agencies have appropriate materiel information systems in place that support informed decision-making and allow for adequate performance monitoring. A critical component of any materiel management system is an effective information management capability.
Accurate, reliable and complete information on materiel assets is seen as a basic requirement of a good asset management regime. This question is also an indicator that is part of the TBS Departmental Results Framework this year.
The MAF results will inform deputy heads (oversight role) and TBS Office of the Comptroller General (policy role) by ensuring that departments and agencies have quantitative and qualitative information about how effective their materiel assets are in meeting program requirements.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Documentation or sample information that demonstrates capability to provide complete and accurate listings of asset holdings (for example, screenshots from materiel information system, sample of asset holdings).
If the answer to Q30 is “no,” provide an explanation in the Organization Comments section.
Document limit: maximum of 6
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Materiel, subsection 6.1.8
- GC priority: “Improve the use of evidence in program evaluation”
Question 31: For its materiel holdings, did the department or agency develop acquisition, maintenance and disposal strategies that consider asset performance information, ongoing program needs, value for money and that reflect government priorities?
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To determine whether departments and agencies employ materiel management strategies that add value and support their objectives and priorities. Adding value and support involves:
- delivering the most effective, efficient, timely, and modern materiel management program
- providing the right materiel, at the best value, at the right time
- adhering to government policies and regulations to ensure proper stewardship
By assessing whether organizations are developing strategies that:
- achieve value for money and sound stewardship
- reduce the government’s greenhouse gas emissions through each of the phases of asset management (acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposition)
The MAF results will inform deputy heads (oversight role) and the TBS Office of the Comptroller General (policy role) about whether the requirements of a good asset management regime are in place.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence:
Recent strategies for materiel acquisitions, operations and maintenance, and dispositions.
Strategies should take into consideration alternative options and total cost of ownership
Evidence should include examples of significant categories of materiel (not limited to fleet).
If the answer is to Q31 is “no,” provide an explanation in the Organization Comments section.
Document limit: maximum of 6
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
Question 32: In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, was the department’s or agency’s measurement of its materiel management program informed by the following performance indicators?
- physical condition
- functionality
- use
- financial performance (the cost of operating and sustaining an asset relative to established standards or targets)
- environmental impact
- Yes
- No
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
To determine whether departments and agencies establish performance standards and indicators to:
- measure how well their materiel assets are being managed throughout the life cycle of the assets
- support informed decision-making about the their allocation of resources
This question assesses how departments establish sound materiel management practices for monitoring asset performance. This assessment will ensure that repairs, refurbishment and replacements are carried out before the assets become unserviceable, uneconomical, or both. The overall extent to which departments’ materiel assets meet Treasury Board policy requirements is measured by an ongoing and systematic assessment of the physical condition, functionality, use, financial performance and environmental impact of these assets against established targets.
The MAF results will inform deputy heads (oversight role) and the TBS Office of the Comptroller General (policy role) by providing an overview of materiel management life-cycle practices, such as storage restrictions and repair and maintenance schedules, so that assets may be properly managed and maintained.
Target (where applicable)
n/a
Calculation method
n/a
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: The evidence may include:
- performance measurement information in all 4 areas for materiel assets
- evidence related to the use of measurement information in the department’s or agency’s decision-making
- greenhouse gas emissions that fleets are responsible for
If the answer to Q32 is “no,” provide an explanation in the Organization Comments section.
Document limit: maximum of 6
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Policy on Management of Materiel, subsection 6.1.2
- GC priority: “Improve the use of evidence in program evaluation”
- Greening Government Strategy
- Federal Sustainable Development Strategy
Question 33: What percentage of vehicles in a department’s or agency’s fleet that are licensed in Canada had their odometer readings updated on a monthly basis, as a minimum, in the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year?
Category
- Policy compliance
- Results or performance
- Service standard
- Baseline information
- Descriptive statistic
Type
- Core
- Spot-check
Rationale
Odometer readings are a key metric to ensure that:
- vehicle use is regularly monitored
- maintenance is scheduled appropriately
This question is also an indicator that is used as part of the TBS Departmental Results Framework.
Departments and agencies are responsible for the management of their vehicles. Regular monitoring of the data will ensure that:
- the data is accurate and complete
- the data is improved for internal and external reporting purposes
The MAF results will inform deputy heads (oversight role) and the TBS Office of the Comptroller General (monitoring and compliance role). Vehicles are purchased using department or agency funds and, although central agency direction can influence purchasing decisions, departments and agencies are fundamentally responsible for deciding how many vehicles they require and the composition of vehicles necessary to fulfill their operational duties. The extended life of materiel assets has important implications for decision makers. For instance, an acquisition decision that is based on the lowest purchase price but that ignores potential operating and maintenance costs may result in a higher overall cost. Therefore, it is important to understand all phases in the materiel management life cycle. Managing effectively requires that an appropriate level of management interest and control be maintained through all phases in an asset’s life cycle.
Target (where applicable)
Vehicle odometer readings must be regularly reported. As a best practice, organizations should report odometer readings, at the very least, on a monthly basis. Target: 100%
Calculation method
Number of vehicles that have had their odometer readings recorded on a monthly basis
÷ Total number of vehicles in the department or agency fleet
Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer
Data source: n/a
Date of data extraction: n/a
Department or agency to answer
Evidence: Department or agency to provide documentation including examples of monthly odometer readings.
Document limit: maximum of 2
Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority
- Directive on Fleet Management: Light Duty Vehicles, subsection 5.3.5
- Guidelines on Fleet Management, Chapter 1: Light Duty Vehicles, subsection 5.5.3
- GC priority: “Improve the use of evidence in program evaluation”
Glossary
- acquisition
- A transaction that adds materiel assets to a department’s or agency’s holdings, including by means of a donation, sponsorship or lease.
- assets
- Items of value that have a future life beyond 1 year, whether they are Crown-owned, leased or accessed through other arrangements.
- common service provider
- A department or agency whose activities are directed mainly toward serving other departments and agencies. For the purposes of this methodology, those services would include the acquisition of goods, services and construction.
- financial performance
- A performance measure that addresses the cost of operating and sustaining an asset relative to established standards or targets.
- fleet
- A group of motor vehicles owned (or leased) by a department, agency or other government organization rather than by an individual or family.
- functionality
- A performance measure that addresses how effectively an asset meets defined program and service requirements.
- life-cycle management
- The effective and efficient management of assets along the entire continuum from the identification of a requirement to the disposal and replacement of the asset acquired to meet the requirement. The phases of life-cycle management include assessing requirements, analyzing options, planning the acquisition of the asset, acquiring the asset, operating the asset, maintaining the asset, and disposing and replacing the asset.
- materiel
- All movable assets, excluding money and records, acquired by Her Majesty in right of Canada.
- materiel management
- All activities necessary to acquire, hold, use and dispose of materiel, including the notion of achieving the greatest possible efficiency throughout the life cycle of materiel assets.
- physical performance
- A measure that addresses the physical state of repair and environmental condition of an asset relative to its current and long-term service delivery requirements.
- recapitalization
- Capital investments that do not add functionality or capacity (that is, they extend the life of the asset).
- use or utilization
- A performance measure that addresses the type, suitability and intensity of use of an asset relative to its capacity or potential.
Page details
- Date modified: