Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

MAF 2021 to 2022 Management of Acquired Services and Assets Methodology

On this page

Methodology overview

Sound management of government assets and services is a benchmark of mature public service organizations, as the capacity for programs to deliver on their mandates is related to the sustained performance of organizational assets, projects and procurement.

The 2021-22 Acquired Services and Assets Management Accountability Framework (MAF) methodology is aligned with core comptrollership responsibilities and serves to assess informed decision-making and sound asset management practices that demonstrate best value and sound stewardship including net-zero, climate-resilient and green outcomes for investment planning, project management, real property, materiel management and procurement. The methodology for 2021-22 continues to take into consideration the extraordinary circumstances related to COVID-19 and while 6 additional questions have been included from the previous cycle, it is still a 60% reduction from the 2019-2020 cycle. These new questions focus on real property, materiel management, procurement and greening government.

Use of MAF Results

The 2021-22 MAF results will provide the following information to the three key stakeholder groups listed below:

Deputy Heads

  • Identify current and emerging issues with respect to how assets and acquired services were managed during the pandemic; and
  • Enable fulfillment of comptrollership responsibilities related to investment planning, project management, real property management, procurement, and materiel management.

Acquired Services and Assets Functional Communities:

  • Improve policy compliance and management practices and lead to change within their respective organizations; and
  • Encourage conversations within the respective Acquired Services and Assets Sector communities and within the Office of the Comptroller General regarding the sharing of best practices and the identification of government-wide challenges.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat:

  • Enable policy centres to monitor trends and identify gaps in policy compliance; and
  • Communicate priorities and expectations relating to the management of assets and acquired services to departments and agencies and facilitate the sharing of notable practices and identify any systemic issues that will inform the development of policy, guidance and tools.

Period of assessment

April 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (2020-2021)
ASAS 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Total number of questions 31 6 12table 1 note *
Total number of questions which require the submission of evidence 25 4 9

Table 1 Notes

Table 1 Note 1

11 questions focusing on the core elements of ASAS and one on greening government.

Return to table 1 note * referrer

  • Four questions carried over from 2020-21 MAF cycle and two questions reintroduced from the 2019-20 MAF cycle for a total of six “preserved” questions.
  • Six new questions added (two in real property, one on materiel management, two in procurement and one on greening government).

Overall outcomes

The methodology will generate insights into aspects of assets and acquired services management and provide important insights into current and emerging issues (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions reduction) related to investment planning, real property, materiel and procurement.

MAF 2020-21 ASAS Questionnaire

Real Property

Question #1 preserved

In 2020-21, did the department or agency develop and/or update the acquisition, maintenance and disposal strategies for its entire real property portfolio that consider asset performance information, ongoing program needs, full lifecycle costs, and reflect government priorities and legislation?

  • Yes
  • No

Rationale

  • To ensure that real property strategies exist, including all of an organization’s real property assets, and align with policy, other related government priorities, and legislation such as the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the Greening Government Strategy.
  • Custodians are required to develop strategies that ensure their real property assets are maintained in good condition throughout their lifecycle. These data-driven strategies should consider asset performance information, ongoing and future program needs, and the full lifecycle costs (financial, environmental, security, etc.) while seeking to achieve best value, sound stewardship, and reduce the government’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cost savings should result from managing real property assets on a portfolio basis rather than on an asset-by-asset basis.
  • Custodians are also required to identify the infrastructure assets within their real property portfolio that are most at risk because of a changing climate and implement adaptation plans accordingly.
  • A response to this question informs TBS and Deputy Heads of the organization’s planning capacity to develop proactive, integrated strategies that consider asset requirements from an organizational perspective, instead of a local, reactive asset-by-asset approach to real property asset management. This approach should result in cost savings, and greater opportunities to align with broader whole-of-government priorities and objectives.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

100%

Calculation method (where applicable)

N/A

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Data source: N/A

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence:

  • Evidence must include the organization’s real property portfolio strategy or strategies that describe planned actions relating to acquisitions, operations and maintenance, and dispositions of real property assets. As required by the Greening Government Strategy, a  net-zero climate resilient real property portfolio plan must also be included;
  • Evidence must be relevant to the 2020-2021 fiscal year;
  • Evidence must:
    • Identify and describe the real property strategy or strategies for all real property assets for each of the following phases of lifecycle management: acquisitions, operations and maintenance, and dispositions. A carbon neutral strategy must also be included;
    • Describe actions taken to identify the infrastructure within the real property portfolio that is most at risk because of a changing climate;
    • Clearly identify when each strategy was developed and approved;
    • Identify the proportion of the real property portfolio (% of total) that is included in the strategies;
    • Identify which elements of the portfolio strategy or strategies were developed and/or updated during FY2020-21 and explain why.
  • Evidence must demonstrate how the portfolio strategy or strategies consider asset performance information, ongoing program needs, and full lifecycle costs;
  • Evidence must demonstrate how the portfolio strategy or strategies respond to government priorities and legislation that implicate real property including: Greening Government Strategy, Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, National Housing Strategy/Federal Lands Initiative, Laboratories Canada, accessibility, heritage considerations, and any other applicable priorities or legislation;
  • Narrative summary documents and organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are strongly encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

No. This is a Yes/No question and a government-wide average does not provide any extra insight.

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

Yes

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #2 preserved

In 2020-21, what was the total amount spent on the recapitalization, and the repair and maintenance of Crown-owned real property assets to ensure the integrity of those assets?

Rationale

The amount of resources invested into Crown-owned real property assets is essential to calculating the rate of reinvestment into the real property asset portfolio.

  • The annual rate of reinvestment indicates to custodians whether adequate resources are being dedicated to maintaining the custodial real property asset portfolio in acceptable condition. Year-over-year results enable trend analysis;
  • This question informs TBS and Deputy Heads of the types of activities included in each category of investment.

The evidence provided for this question is a component to calculating the annual reinvestment rate. The sum of the annual investments in recapitalization and repair and maintenance work is divided by the current replacement value of the entire real property portfolio, and expressed as a percentage.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

N/A

Calculation method (where applicable)

The total 2020-2021 actual expenditures for repair and maintenance added to the total 2020-2021 actual expenditures for recapitalization.

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property

Date of data extraction: TBS to extract from DFRP on November 18, 2021

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Evidence:

  • TBS will provide the total amount spent on repair and maintenance, and recapitalization for 2020-2021 by extracting data from the Directory of Federal Real Property.
    • Departments and agencies to demonstrate/describe what type of work was included in repair and maintenance (see Glossary for definitions), and how the total expenditures for repair and maintenance was calculated. For example, a summary of all repair and maintenance projects, including all expenses.
    • Departments and agencies to demonstrate/describe what type of work was included as recapitalization (see Glossary for definitions), and how the total expenditures for recapitalization were calculated. For example, a summary of all recapitalization projects, including all expenses.
    • Narrative summary documents and organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: Actual expenditures incurred between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021.

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

Yes

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #3 preserved

In 2020-21, what was the target rate of annual reinvestment for Crown-owned assets within the department or agency’s real property portfolio?

Rationale

  • Establishing a target rate of annual investment for Crown-owned real property assets is essential to informing real property investment decisions. Within the context of their portfolio strategies, custodians must develop an appropriate target rate of annual reinvestment into their real property assets;
  • This rate will indicate to custodians whether adequate resources are being allocated and dedicated to maintaining the custodial real property asset portfolio in an acceptable condition;
  • The target will allow for comparison against actual annual investments into the real property portfolio. This comparison provides TBS and Deputy Heads insight into organizational planning capacity and their ability to execute planned activities.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

The response provided by custodians is the target.

Calculation method (where applicable)

The target rate of annual reinvestment is calculated by dividing the total value of planned and budgeted repair, maintenance, and recapitalization work included in the departmental 2020-2021 investment plan by the replacement value of the entire real property portfolio and expressed as a percentage. This target rate may be a blended or weighted average, depending on the types of asset class and/or geographical region.

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Data source: N/A

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence:

  • Evidence must describe how the target was established or calculated for the custodian’s real property portfolio, when it was last established or calculated, and when it was last approved and by which decision body;
  • Evidence must describe how and why the target is appropriate for the custodian’s real property portfolio;
  • Narrative summary documents and/or organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

Yes

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #4 new

In 2020-21, what was the annual rate of investment into deferred maintenance for Crown-owned real property assets?

Rationale

  • Departments and agencies have significant backlogs of deferred maintenance for their Crown-owned real property assets;
  • This question provides TBS and Deputy Heads with data that demonstrates whether or not their organization is reducing or increasing the total amount of outstanding deferred maintenance;
  • Too little annual investment into deferred maintenance ensures that the organization will not be able to maintain or elevate its portfolio to good condition, and may require adjustments to investment strategies or funding allocations in order to achieve sustainability;
  • Too much annual investment into deferred maintenance risks adding to the overall total of deferred maintenance by deferring timely, required lifecycle maintenance, repair, and recapitalization work for other assets;
  • Outstanding deferred maintenance is a financial liability and may jeopardize program delivery as real property assets underperform and/or fail;
  • An overall reduction of total outstanding deferred maintenance provides best value to the Crown, as deferred maintenance is more costly due to inflation and given that the assets will deteriorate faster than lifecycle forecasts predict, potentially increasing the scope and duration of the required work.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other (baseline)

Target

Positive rate of investment

Calculation method (where applicable)

The amount expended on deferred maintenance will be divided by the total value of estimated deferred maintenance reported in the DFRP. The resulting value will then be expressed as a percentage to show any reduction or growth in total deferred maintenance. The result may be a negative number.

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP)

Date of data extraction: TBS to extract from DFRP on November 18, 2021

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Evidence:

  • TBS will provide the estimated total amount of deferred maintenance, by extracting the data previously reported to the DFRP;
  • Departments and agencies must provide a detailed list of work for Crown-owned real property assets, classified as deferred maintenance, that was initiated and/or completed during the assessment period along with total expenditures;
  • Evidence must identify how long the work was considered “deferred” before it was funded and executed;
  • Evidence must identify when the work is expected to be completed, if outside the assessment period;
  • Narrative summary documents and/or organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 4 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes, but this is a baseline question for this year. Year over year analysis will be enabled once multiple years of data are collected.

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #5 new

In 2020-21, what was the proportional rate of the value of deferred maintenance for Crown-owned real property assets that were added to the organization’s 2019-20 total estimated deferred maintenance?

Rationale

  • Departments and agencies have significant backlogs of deferred maintenance for their Crown-owned real property assets;
  • This question provides TBS and Deputy Heads with data that demonstrates whether or not their organization is reducing or increasing the overall total of deferred maintenance;
  • Outstanding deferred maintenance is a financial liability and may jeopardize program delivery as real property assets underperform and/or fail;
  • Increases to the organization’s total deferred maintenance may indicate a need to adjust investment planning strategies or funding allocation in order to achieve sustainability;
  • Analyzed in conjunction with the data from Q4, this question will identify the true growth or reduction of total deferred maintenance in a given fiscal year by enabling a direct comparison between the rate of investment into deferred maintenance work and the rate of required investments that have been deferred into the future.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other (baseline)

Target

0%. No increase to the deferred maintenance total indicates sustainable funding levels and sound strategic planning.

Calculation method (where applicable)

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

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Data source: Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP)

Date of data extraction: TBS to extract from DFRP on November 18, 2021

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the 9 Real Property custodians assessed under this AoM)

Evidence:

  • TBS will provide the estimated total amount of deferred maintenance, by extracting the data previously reported to the DFRP;
  • Departments and agencies must provide a detailed list of work for Crown-owned real property assets that should have been initiated and/or completed during the assessment period but were deferred to a future time, along with their total estimated costs;
  • Evidence should identify when the work is expected to be funded and executed;
  • Narrative summary documents and/or organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 4 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes, but this is a baseline question for this year. Year over year analysis will be enabled once multiple years of data are collected.

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

Yes

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Investment Planning

Question #6 Preserved: previously a Baseline Question

In 2020-21, was the governance committee or individual responsible for investment oversight provided with consolidated performance information, itemising the active investments as detailed in the department or agency’s investment plan?

  • Yes
  • No

Rationale

  • Investment planning is defined as the process of allocating and reallocating resources to both existing and new investments, in a diligent and rational manner, to support program outcomes and government priorities.
  • Per policy, information must be available on the state and implementation performance of these investment decisions, to enable the committee or individual tasked with their oversight to make informed decisions.
  • This question seeks to evaluate if departments and agencies are producing complete performance information related to the implementation of their investment decisions, so governance may benefit from this information when exercising their responsibilities.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

100%

Calculation method (where applicable)

N/A

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies

Data source: MAF Portal

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: MAF Portal

Evidence:

  1. One example of the consolidated investment performance report which was submitted during the 2020-2021 fiscal year to the investment oversight committee/individual, and
  2. The relevant record of decision (or equivalent), acknowledging receipt of the submitted investment performance report.

Document limit: 2

Note: If required, Departments can amalgamate multiple documents into each piece of evidence prior to submitting them through the MAF portal.

Period of assessment: 2020-2021 Fiscal Year

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

2 references are included, given departments had from April 11, 2019 to October 11, 2019 to transition from the old to the new policy.

Materiel Management

Question #7 new

In 2020-21, did the department develop or update a strategy for assessing the risk level of all materiel holdings to determine stocktaking strategies and timelines?

  • Yes
  • No

Rationale

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

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other (baseline)

Target

100%

Calculation method (where applicable)

N/A

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

Data source: N/A

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence:

  • Recent strategies for stocktaking;
  • Evidence of inventory timelines or schedules for stocktaking or internal inventory policies; and/or,
  • Documents assessing risk for different asset categories, such as fleet, office furnishings, laboratory equipment, IT equipment, etc…
  • If the answer is “No”, please provide an explanation in the Organization Comments section.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

No

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes. Year over year analysis will be enabled once multiple years of data are collected.

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Procurement

Question #8 new- but based on questions carried over from 2019-20 MAF cycle

In 2020-21, did the department or agency have formal governance and oversight mechanisms in place to support the management of procurement?

  • Yes
  • No

Rationale

To assess whether organizations have governance and oversight mechanisms in place to mitigate departmental procurement risks (e.g. entering into risky contracts or contracts that provide poor value for money). TBS uses this information to better understand the function and operation of departmental and agency internal procurement review processes and to identify best practices associated with these processes.

Departments must demonstrate that the following were in place during the 2020-2021 fiscal year:

  • A contract review committee or board that acted as a departmental challenge mechanism
  • Lessons learned at the procurement planning phase that enabled the organization to learn and improve from past experience to ensure successful delivery of procurements
  • A system to proactively assess and renew expiring long-term contracts (two years or longer) at least one year in advance of their expiration.

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

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other (baseline)

Target

Yes

Calculation method (where applicable)

N/A

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

Data source: N/A

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence:

Departments are required to provide the following information:

  • Documentation to show that a review committee/ board is currently in place within the department. For example:
    1. Review committee/board terms of reference
  • Documentation to show that the review committee/ board is involved in on-going review and approval of departmental contracts. For example:
    1. A report or summary of the standard operating procedures the committee uses when reviewing contracts
    2. Summaries of contract review proceedings that were provided to the Deputy Head
    3. Summary of review committee/board outcomes – how many contracts were denied or requested to be revised out of all contracts reviewed
  • Documentation (e.g. an approved project management framework) that demonstrates that a process is in place requiring the review and consideration of lessons learned from past procurements during the planning phase of new procurements.
  • Documentation showing that the department has an electronic system in place that monitors the duration of contracts and identifies expiry dates.
  • Documentation showing how the system supports proactive contract planning for long-term contracts (2 years or more) a year in advance of expiry.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed)

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #9 new baseline question

In 2020-21, did the department or agency have strategies in place to further economic empowerment and to increase diversity in procurement with regard to Indigenous businesses?

  • Yes
  • No

Rationale

This question builds on the 2020 Speech from the Throne and existing mandate commitments to increase the diversity of bidders, including small businesses and businesses led by Indigenous Peoples, and to improve the capacity of Indigenous businesses to compete for government contracts. The Government of Canada is committed to increasing the participation and growth of Indigenous businesses in federal procurement and to improving the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous communities.

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

Yes

Calculation method (where applicable)

N/A

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer
Department or Agency to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

Data source: N/A

Date of data extraction: N/A

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence:

Departments and agencies to demonstrate, for example:

  • Engagements and/ or consultations with land claimant groups
  • Market Research
  • Participation in bidders’ conferences
  • Use of a PSAB stream for procurements
  • Use of PSPC’s benefit plans and tools in relation to procurement with Indigenous businesses

Narrative summary documents and organizational comments describing how the evidence addresses the question are encouraged.

Document limit: Maximum of 6 documents (embedded documents will not be reviewed).

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

No

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

N/A

Question #10 carried over from 2019-20 MAF cycle and modified

During 2020-21, what percentage of the value of department or agency contracts over $25K (excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers) was awarded through a competitive bidding process?

Rationale

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

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

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

100%

Calculation method (where applicable)

Based on the Proactive Disclosure of Contracts above $10K Quarterly reports.

Dividing the total original value of competitive contracts over $25K awarded by the total original value of all contracts over $25K awarded (both competitive and non-competitive).

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

Data source: Proactive Disclosure of Contracts over $10K quarterly reports

Date of data extraction: Fall 2021

Data collection method: Open Data

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

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

Document limit: 3

Period of assessment: 2020-2021 fiscal year

Department or Agency to answer

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question #11 carried over from 2019-20 MAF cycle and modified

During 2020-21, what percentage of the number of department or agency contracts over $25K (excluding contracts awarded under Standing Offers/ Supply Arrangements established by Common Service Providers) was awarded through a competitive bidding process?

Rationale

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

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

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

100%

Calculation method (where applicable)

Based on the Proactive Disclosure of Contracts above $10K Quarterly reports.

This is calculated by dividing the total number of original competitive contracts over $25K awarded by the total number of all original contracts over $25K awarded (both competitive and non-competitive).

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

Data source: Proactive Disclosure of Contracts over $10K quarterly reports

Date of data extraction: Fall 2021

Data collection method: Open Data

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

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

Document limit: 3

Period of assessment: 2020-2021 fiscal year

Department or Agency to answer

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

No

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Centre for Greening Government

Question #12 new Baseline Question

In 2020-21, by what percentage did the department reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from real property and conventional fleet, compared to a 2005 baseline?

Rationale

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

Category

  1. Policy compliance
  2. Performance
  3. Other

Target

Net zero emissions from real property and conventional fleet by 2050.

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

Calculation method (where applicable)

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

Evidence source and document limit

TBS to answer

This question applies to the following organizations:

  • Large departments and Agencies (the previously 11 assessed departments)

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

Date of data extraction: TBS issues the reporting call-out in spring and validates data over the summer. Validated data for 2020-2021 will be available by October 2021.

Data collection method: Documentary evidence (MAF Portal)

Evidence: The primary evidence will be the GHG reduction as a percentage against a 2005 baseline. Other supplementary evidence could include whether a department has prepared a zero carbon climate resilient portfolio plan (Real Property) or purchased hybrid or zero-emission vehicles as part of their fleet (conventional Fleet).

Document limit: N/A

Period of assessment: April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021

Department or Agency to answer

Other TBS use only new

Government Wide Average:

Will this indicator be used in the determination of the Government Wide Average?

Yes. The data is used to calculate the Government of Canada progress towards GHG emissions reduction targets.

Year over Year Analysis:

Can the indicator be used in a year over year analysis?

Yes

Departmental Results Framework (DRF)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

Yes

Reference materials

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Annex A: List of MAF-Assessed Organizations under the ASAS AoM

  1. Canadian Border Services AgencyFootnote *
  2. Correctional Services of CanadaFootnote *
  3. Department of Fisheries and OceansFootnote *
  4. Department of National DefenceFootnote *
  5. Employment and Social Development Canada
  6. Global Affairs CanadaFootnote *
  7. Health CanadaFootnote *
  8. Parks CanadaFootnote *
  9. Public Services and Procurement CanadaFootnote *
  10. Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceFootnote *
  11. Shared Services Canada

Annex B: Definitions

Deferred maintenance:
Repairs and maintenance to infrastructure or assets that are overdue or delayed. They may be delayed due to budgeting decision, lack of funding, or a lack of required human resources capacity and/or expertise.
Conventional fleet:
  • The federal fleet includes all of the aircraft, marine vessels and land vehicles owned or leased by federal departments, agencies and other government organizations. This includes both the conventional and National Safety and Security fleets:
    • Federal National Safety and Security (NSS) Fleet: The aircraft, marine vessels and tactical land vehicles owned or leased by DND, RCMP and the Coast Guard that have an explicit national safety or security function. For the purposes of the GGS, the NSS fleet is limited only to DND, RCMP and the Coast Guard.
    • Conventional fleet: The aircraft, marine vessels and land vehicles owned or leased by federal departments, agencies and other government organizations that are not part of the NSS Fleet

Page details

Date modified: