Chief Procurement Officer

2.1.1 Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services Canada: roles and responsibilities

The Task Force noted in its review of government procurement that there was confusion created by the procurement roles and responsibilities of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and Public Works and Procurement Services Canada (now Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)). It specifically noted that the division of responsibilities between the departments added to the lack of standardization in government procurement^{Footnote 4}. A key issue was where the responsibilities of TBS, as the creator of procurement policy, end, and where the responsibilities of PWGSC, as the department implementing the policy, begin. This contributed to a tension between the creation of strategic objectives and their implementation that “can produce a challenging environment for decision makers"^{Footnote 5}.

According to the Task Force, this tension appeared in the following issues noted in several audit reports: “compliance with, or clarity of, contract regulations and policies, responsibilities related to contract administration/contract management, and the need for procurement-related training”^{Footnote 6}. The impact of roles and accountabilities also hindered the development of clear objectives, which support the achievement of objectives and the mobilisation of the resources required to achieve them^{Footnote 7}.

2.1.2 Standardization and accountability

Lack of standardization was an overarching problem identified by the Task Force^{Footnote 8}. This was partially owing to the fragmented nature of the procurement system, which the Task Force summarized as “policy versus operations; delegations divided between goods and services; departments sometimes operating independently, sometimes opting for services provided by the common service organization and sometimes obliged to accept mandatory services from PWGSC”^{Footnote 9}. The resulting impact was a complex system with no clear accountability center. The importance of accountability in procurement cannot be overstated, as it incentivizes the use and implementation of best practices.

Many suppliers noted the complexity and the slow pace of the procurement process and the resulting negative impact on fairness and transparency^{Footnote 8}. These observations were shared by the Auditor General, who noted “the need to improve the time it takes to get suppliers in place to meet specific government operational needs”^{Footnote 4}.

To address these issues, the Task Force recommended creating a focal point for procurement accountabilities, and a procurement oversight body “to provide oversight and transparency on the management of procurement and the evolution of procurement best practices”^{Footnote 10}. The Task Force also made a number of recommendations to support standardization including the mandatory use of government-wide procurement tools, the development of standing offers, and the creation and use of government-wide terminology.^{Footnote 11}

2.4.1 Procurement Ombudsman

The issues highlighted above reaffirm what the Ombudsman continues to hear, both from suppliers and government officials. Two issues worth noting are the complexity of the procurement process and the need for greater professionalization of the procurement community. These issues have been highlighted in three consecutive annual reports from 2017-2020^{Footnote 25}. On the issue of complexity, the Ombudsman noted that “simplification of the procurement process is an ongoing issue that has been raised…for many years. [The Ombudsman] often hears that federal procurement is too complicated, time consuming, and bureaucratic”^{Footnote 26}. As a result, simplification has been identified as a key area of focus for the current Procurement Ombudsman^{Footnote 27}.

The second issue on procurement professionalization concerns procurement expertise and the strengthening of the procurement community. This issue was raised to the Ombudsman by federal officials who identified that "the procurement community needs to be strengthened. Resource capacity is running low, training/certification is difficult to acquire…and expectations of procurement officers is inconsistent"^{Footnote 27}. This capacity gap has been recognized by TBS who has partnered with universities and colleges to promote procurement careers^{Footnote 28}.

In summary, while the government reviews highlighted in this section were conducted independently over a 15 year period, they all draw attention to similar issues in federal procurement that persist to this day. These include a lack of leadership, need for standardization, complexity of procurement, lack of accountability, and the need for greater professionalization of the procurement community. In 2017, the CPO White Paper used these issues to call for the creation of a federal CPO.

2.5.1 Chief Information Officer

Canada’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) was created in 1993 with the rise of new information and communication technologies^{Footnote 29}. The reason for the creation of this role stemmed from an influential report from the Glassco commission which drew attention to the “lack of leadership by Treasury Board with respect to data processing and transmission”^{Footnote 30}. The CIO is the “government’s senior advisor on the use of [information and communication technology]”, and a leader “in information management, information technology, security, privacy, and access to information across the Government of Canada”^{Footnote 31}. By providing strategic direction and leadership, the CIO is also a spokesman for the issues and possible solutions in the field.

The CIO Council is one way to promote leadership. Led by the CIO, the Council brings together all departmental CIOs to coordinate on policy development and implementation^{Footnote 32}. The establishment of this Council "continued to be one of the CIO’s most important leadership instruments within the public service"^{Footnote 33}.

From its creation in 1993 until 2018, the CIO was below the Deputy Minister (DM) level (Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) is the level below), which is not the case with other chiefs, the Chief Human Resources Officer being one example^{Footnote 34}. The initial rank of the CIO limited its leadership ability^{Footnote 35}. In 2018 the CIO was elevated to DM rank, notably recalibrating the potential impact the function could have^{Footnote 36}. This change also gave the CIO a seat at the senior leadership table and allowed it to contribute to the interdepartmental committees that tackle systemic government issues. The CIO, as a Deputy Minister, now has the ability to bring issues forward and bring attention to them in a way that would never have been possible had the position remained at the ADM level^{Footnote 36}.

2.5.3 Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer

The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) was created in 2009 in response to a government review (encompassing $250 million in human resource funding) that found leadership inefficiencies. The OCHRO was created by merging the Canada Public Service Agency and parts of TBS that dealt with compensation and human resources issues to create a centre of leadership with common roles and responsibilities^{Footnote 37}.

The OCHRO “supports the Treasury Board in its role as the employer by driving excellence in people management and ensuring the appropriate degree of consistency across the public service”^{Footnote 38}. The OCHRO also supports the human resources community in creating awareness of ethical practices and whistleblowing^{Footnote 38}. One of the key responsibilities of the OCHRO is to provide advice and guidance to executives on their responsibilities regarding the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which is the legislation that supports whistleblowing. One of the key responsibilities of the OCHRO is to provide advice and guidance to executives on their responsibilities regarding the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which is the legislation that supports whistleblowing^{Footnote 39}. In supporting departments and the objectives in the Public Service Modernization Act, the office contributes to the overall simplification of government hiring^{Footnote 40}.

Led by the Chief and providing further support for departments is the human resources (HR) Council, which plays "an integral part in shaping a shared people management agenda and is engaged through established governance structures"^{Footnote 41}. The Council further highlights the leadership role of the Chief, but also other aspects of the function like coordination, as the Council is "comprised of [the] Heads of Human Resources"^{Footnote 42}.

2.5.3 Chief Procurement Officer

It is envisioned that a CPO, once created, would be at the same DM level as the Chief Information Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer, and therefore have the ability and influence to successfully lead the federal procurement function.

3.1.1 Best value and government as single buyer

The fragmented nature of the procurement system was addressed through the creation of the Government Procurement Service (GPS), with a reporting relationship to the CPO^{Footnote 49}. Similar to PSPC in Canada, the GPS supports centralization by contracting for common goods and services on behalf of departments^{Footnote 50}. Before this reform, departments held contracts with many of the same suppliers for similar or identical goods or services; a practice which the National Audit Office noted carried monetary risks^{Footnote 51}. As a single buyer and with the support of the CPO, the government was able to unify its purchasing position and speak with one voice. Due to many departments contracting for the same goods and services, experts were appointed to negotiate—as a single purchaser representing all departments—with the suppliers that had a large share of procurement^{Footnote 52}.

3.1.2 Simplification and standardization

An achievement of the CPO was the increased accessibility of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) contracts to SMEs. To achieve the government-wide goal of awarding 25% of contracts to SMEs, changes were made to the procurement strategy of timelines and advertising for ICT requirements^{Footnote 53}. The government tried to reduce large contracts and organize what used to be an all-encompassing ICT contract into contracts organized by the work^{Footnote 54}. For example, work on software was contracted separate from networks, rather than coupled in a larger contract^{Footnote 55}. This method increased accessibility by allowing smaller suppliers with specific expertise on a single topic to compete with larger suppliers with expertise across topics.

Standardization benefited supplier performance management. Prior to the reforms the National Audit Office noted that “a supplier performing poorly in one department could win a bid for a similar contract in another department, without performance concerns being discussed"^{Footnote 55}. With the creation of a CPO came a united approach to supplier management. The Commercial Relationships team and Crown Representatives compiled a supplier portfolio and produced recommended performance ratings^{Footnote 56}.

3.1.3 Professionalization

The CPO also contributed to strengthening procurement expertise and professionalizing the procurement function through the creation of the Commissioning Academy to “elevate the status of both commissioning and procurement, and develop a cadre of professionals”^{Footnote 48}. The creation of the Academy supported the development of public sector expertise across the UK by hosting “master classes, workshops, guest speakers, site visits, and peer challenge”^{Footnote 56}. The professionalization of the profession was one way the CPO contributed to outcomes-based procurement and it further enhanced the knowledge of citizens and communities in the public sector^{Footnote 57}. For the Academy, knowing localized needs was a means of focusing on outcomes^{Footnote 58}.

3.1.4 Procurement Reform Board

The Procurement Reform Board (PRB) was established to be the CPO’s touchpoint with departments. Led by the CPO, the PRB brought together the procurement directors from the 6 departments with the highest procurement volume^{Footnote 59}. Oriented by the strategic goals of the reform strategy, the PRB allowed procurement leaders to coordinate their response and subsequent action items^{Footnote 60}. With the goal of saving money and emphasizing proper oversight of tax payer dollars, the reform strategy aimed to “aggregate and standardize expenditure on common goods and services"^{Footnote 60}.

3.2.1 Standardization

Standardization is a crucial issue that is a key area of focus for Nova Scotia’s CPO. To ensure consistency across departments, the CPO is empowered to "identify opportunities and support collaboration […] across the public sector"^{Footnote 62}. By developing a procurement manual with various protocols and templated tools (RFPs, RFQs) for government-wide use, the CPO supports a unified procurement approach^{Footnote 63}.

The CPO also runs a compliance program to ensure the policy is being followed^{Footnote 64}. The program contributes to standardization while acting as a feedback mechanism on the policy itself. This alleviates any conflict between those developing the policy and those implementing it^{Footnote 65}. The Procurement Advisory Group also monitors how a policy is interacting with various public departments^{Footnote 65}.

The CPO has contributed to the modernization of the procurement function. An example is the development and implementation of e-procurement tools^{Footnote 66}. E-procurement is not only important for environmental support through saved resources, but also for efficiency—the creation and submission of bids through one online tool. Another example of modernization is an initiative called Flextrack, which is similar to a standing offer, yet with added flexibility^{Footnote 67}. Evolving from standing offers for information technology (IT) management, Flextrack has grown to include "managing executive search, communication services, managed business services, and temporary staffing"^{Footnote 68}. Where a standing offer requires the supplier to be available for a fixed period of time and to be able to deliver a good or service upon request, Flextrack allows suppliers to exit the program at any point^{Footnote 69}. A few benefits of the program are “controls over setting and maintaining budgets, managing extensions, and ensuring visibility into the fair and equitable selection of vendors"^{Footnote 69}.

3.2.2. Leadership and innovation

Led by the CPO, the Procurement Advisory Group (PAG) brings together procurement experts from a variety of areas, including municipalities, academic institutions, school boards, health authorities and government departments^{Footnote 70}. The PAG advises the Minister on a number of procurement issues including best practices (efficiency and cost), risk, and standardization of policy and practices^{Footnote 71}.

Beyond its advisory function, the PAG also plays a role in innovation through the development of guides and protocols for use by public agencies. Two examples include Alternative Procurement Circumstance Guide (ALTP Guide) and a guide on the use of piggy-back clauses^{Footnote 69}. The ALTP Guide discusses various procurement scenarios and the procurement methodologies that could be utilized (emergency scenarios, sole-source etc.) and outlines a path forward^{Footnote 72}. The second guide on piggy-backing discusses a procurement methodology used post contract award whereby the government can purchase the same goods/services through the original process^{Footnote 73}. Looking forward, the PAG is working on "a Complaint Protocol, a guide to Joint Procurements, and How to Deal with Unsolicited Proposals"^{Footnote 69}.

Reporting to the CPO and supporting the PAG is the Procurement Governance Secretariat^{Footnote 74}. The Secretariat addresses some of the issues associated with procurement, both for public servants and suppliers. Supporting suppliers, the Secretariat conducts outreach activities and continually improves the procurement web portal and other e-tools that support ease of use^{Footnote 75}. To support public servants and by extension the procurement community, the Secretariat supports and develops professional development programs as well as conducting general procurement research^{Footnote 76}.

3.2.3 Transparency and accountability

Another key feature of the CPO at the provincial level is its contribution to transparency and accountability. On the buying side, public sector entities are required to submit an annual report on departmental accomplishments to the CPO, which allows the CPO to account for activities that are mandated by legislation^{Footnote 77}. On the selling side, a supplier left unsatisfied with the information provided by a department can file a complaint with the CPO^{Footnote 78}. The complaint mechanism holds departments accountable for providing clear and concise information. If necessary, a complaint can lead to an investigation and result in recommendations to both parties involved^{Footnote 79}.

A feature supporting the CPO’s ability to receive complaints is the Procurement Review Committee. This function receives, reviews, creates timelines, and clarifies the outcomes of a review^{Footnote 69}. While limited in its power, as it cannot overturn a procurement award nor pause the award of a contract, the Committee fulfills an important accountability mechanism by providing a vehicle for suppliers to voice their concerns^{Footnote 69}.

3.3.1 Standardization

The CPO has contributed to standardization through the development of general policy “for application by all public bodies”^{Footnote 83}. One example is the Public Procurement Policy; it is multifaceted in providing guidance to procuring bodies and clarifying aspects of the legislation^{Footnote 83}. The CPO also provides support outside of policy by publishing procurement information and advising departments on implementing procurement frameworks^{Footnote 84}. The CPO is also responsible for developing “standardized procedures for the procurement of commodities, documents and training programs”^{Footnote 85}. To support consistent implementation and a common look and feel, the CPO developed standardized procurement templates^{Footnote 83}.

One area that the CPO has been responsible for bringing greater standardization to is supplier performance. The Act tasks the CPO with maintaining "effective oversight of the procurement activities of public bodies, particularly with respect to (i) supplier performance"^{Footnote 86}. Increased standardization in the area of supplier performance, through the development of a government-wide consensus on what constitutes a good or bad supplier, contributes to value for money. Despite guidance and leadership from the CPO, supplier performance is a new initiative and the diversity of government purchasing poses a challenge to standardization^{Footnote 83}. Defining what constitutes poor performance across the wide range of goods and services the government procures, as well as the range of methodologies used to procure them, can be challenging. Furthermore, the supplier is only one variable; the government can also impact supplier performance through poorly written solicitations and statements of work and poor contract management^{Footnote 83}.

3.3.2 Procurement Advisory Council

Led by the CPO, the Procurement Advisory Council (the Council) is composed of procurement experts from a wide range of institutions like school boards and municipalities that have been appointed by the Minister^{Footnote 87}. While the primary goal of the Council is to advise the Minister, the Council has also been engaged in the areas of procurement methodologies, standardization, and the identification of efficiencies and inefficiencies^{Footnote 88}. Despite its recent creation, the Council has been a helpful structure in clarifying "the legislation, discussing best practices, and sharing experiences"^{Footnote 83}.

3.3.3 Transparency and accountability

The CPO also supports a transparent and accountable procurement process through the review departmental procurement practices^{Footnote 89}. In reviewing procurement files, the CPO notes deficiencies and can make recommendations to the procuring department. These reviews are scheduled annually and can target the full procurement process—pre-solicitation, solicitation, and contracting—or one aspect of the procurement process^{Footnote 83}. In addition, the CPO has the authority to conduct an ad-hoc review^{Footnote 83}. The findings in these reviews can vary and recommendations stem from the particular case; however, in all cases, the reviews support the principles of transparency and accountability, and benefit government procurement as a whole by identifying lessons learned.