Post on 27-Feb-2022
The Evolution of Real Property Service Management at PWGSC
RPIC Conference November 18, 2015
Today’s Presentations
2
When we left you last year, all six RP-1 contracts had just been awarded to Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions (BGIS) with an operational start date of April 1, 2015.
Context: ü RP-1 Contracts – Background Service Delivery Regime Acceptance Review ü Service Delivery Regime (SDR) Acceptance Review Process – current status ü Next Steps
Operational Transition: ü AFD 2005 Close-Out ü Working with the Real Property Contractor (RPC) ü Challenges and Successes ü Lessons Learned
Quality Monitoring: ü Quality Monitoring (QM) Regime ü Expected Outcomes ü New QM Approach and Methodology ü The QM Plan Concept
3
Previously, we discussed . . . . • The strategic importance of RP-1 to PWGSC, Other Government
Department Custodian clients and tenants • Wide range of assets included in the contract inventories, including
leased and Crown-owned assets • Alignment of contract structure with PWGSC’s organization, with six
contracts, each subdivided into portfolios • The Quality Monitoring and Performance Measurement Regime being
applied • Improvements over previous AFD contract iterations, including emphasis
on two key aspects: § Requirement for ongoing demonstration of Best Value § Contractor’s Total Service Delivery Responsibility
3
4
• Management Services
• Services to Establish Third-party Leases and Agreements
• Lease Administration Services
• Project Delivery Services
• Optional Services (Future)
Services included in RP-1 Contracts:
4
5
Presented by: Jennifer Hersey RP-1 Project Leader
RP-1 OVERVIEW
RP-1 Timeline
SDR Acceptance Review Track
Operations Track
7 November 2014
RP-1 Contracts Awarded Operational Transition
April 1 2015
Ongoing Operations
Acceptance-in-Principle
Go Live
Initiation 16 March
2015 26-30 Oct
2015
Final SDR Acceptance
Review Resolution of
Outstanding Issues
Ongoing Change
Management
Alignment of Services with Accepted SDR
Specification
6
7
Since the RP-1 Contracts were Awarded . . .
• BGIS was awarded six contracts • Transition from previous service provider was smooth, and operations
are now ongoing • Reliance is on BGIS’ Service Delivery Regime (SDR), consistent with
the objective of Total Service Delivery Responsibility • A new Acceptance Review Process leading to Canada’s acceptance
of the SDR has been ongoing, concurrent with operational transition • Output includes an SDR Specification that will be amended into the
contracts
7
The Service Delivery Regime (SDR)
Acceptance Review Process
9
SDR Acceptance Review Objectives
• Expose the service delivery strategies, capabilities, processes and procedures that BGIS will use to meet RP-1 Contract requirements
• Analyze information provided, explore issues of mutual concern, and provide BGIS with Neutral Feedback, thus ensuring that requirements are well-understood and will be met
• Foster an effective working relationship
9
Programs, Regimes and Systems Sustainability Program • Optimized Maintenance Program • Energy Management System (EnMS)
Tenant Relationship Management Program
Commissioning Oversight Program Heritage Conservation Program
Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Program
Harmonized Standards-Based Management Systems Strategy
Risk Management Program Work Management System
Environmental Management System (EMS)
Project Delivery Regime (PDR)
Information Management (IM) Methodology Performance Measurement Regime & Quality Management System
10
SDR Components
10
Management of Ongoing
SDR Change
We Are Here
11
Comprehensive Technical
Assessment Complete
Intermediate Acceptance Review
Operational Start 1 April 2015
Intermediate Acceptance Review
Process
Preliminary Acceptance Review
Process
Critical Acceptance Review
Process
Final Acceptance Review
Process
Contract Award
Readiness Checkpoint 1 Apr 2016 (approx.)
Final SDR
Acceptance
Critical Acceptance
Review
Conditional SDR
Acceptance-in-Principle
Progress on SDR Acceptance has proceeded well
11
12
Experience to date has been positive, with effective participation by all parties
• Early emphasis on due diligence related to legislative compliance • Detailed information has been exchanged between Crown participants
and BGIS - formal submission of information and acceptance review meetings have been complemented by joint Discovery Sessions
• Various issues have been identified and resolved • There is a sound, mutual understanding of Canada’s requirements and
BGIS’ overall approaches for many aspects of the SDR, with ongoing work to resolve outstanding issues
12
13
Participation has been excellent
• The level of participation and commitment to results, both within Government and by BGIS, has been excellent
• Both parties recognized mid-way through the process that a separate, collaborative forum was needed to complement the formal exchange of information and review meetings, to: § understand and optimize the touch points between shared processes § ensure best value where there are interdependencies between
Crown and Contractor processes, e.g. for approvals
13
Next Steps for the SDR Acceptance Review Process
RP-1 Timeline: Next Steps
SDR Acceptance Review Track
Operations Track
Ongoing Operations
26-30 Oct 2015
Final SDR Acceptance
Review
Resolution of Outstanding Issues
Readiness Checkpoint 1 Apr 2016 (approx.)
Ongoing Change
Management
Alignment of Services with Accepted SDR
Specification
Comprehensive Technical
Assessment
15
16
Implementing the Accepted SDR
• This is the first application of an Acceptance Review process by PWGSC for real property – it is also new to industry, involving considerable effort on the part of BGIS and the Crown
• Implementing RP-1 has involved organizational adjustments and change management effort for both BGIS and the Crown: o For BGIS – to undertake the transformation needed to implement,
institutionalize and ensure compliance with the SDR Specification o For the Crown – to implement consistent contract oversight and
quality monitoring, including training and assuring compliance in how RP-1 contracting is managed
16
17
Capturing Lessons Learned
• The SDR Acceptance Review process has demonstrated significant benefits, including early resolution of issues, and a solid understanding of requirements and how they will be met
• A comprehensive Lessons Learned exercise is currently underway to identify improvement opportunities and to determine where it makes sense, and how best to apply this approach to future real property contracting initiatives
17
Thank You!
18
19
NEXT SESSION: RP-1 OPERATIONAL TRANSITION
Presented by: Jennifer Littlemore National Senior Manager Service Management Coordination
Overview
• AFD 2005 Close-Out • Contract Award and Transition Initiation • Working with the Real Property Contractor • Challenges • Operational Start • Successes • Lessons Learned
20
AFD 2005 Close-Out
• Separate Committee • Document Transfer • Major Milestones • Challenges/Solutions
21
Contract Award and Transition Initiation
• Evaluation • Award • Announcement • Transition
22
Working with the Real Property Contractor
• Operational Meetings • Collaborative Working Groups • Introductions • National Leadership
23
Challenges • First Generation Assets and Other Government
Departments • Prioritization • Security, Subcontracting, Vendors and Utilities • Training • Change Management • Reporting
24
Operational Start - April 1, 2015
• SWAT Team • National Service Call Centre • Daily Updates
25
Successes
• Seamless Operational Transition • No Loss of Productivity • Business as Usual • Senior Management Recognition
26
Lessons Learned
• More Lead Time • Subject Matter Experts • Knowledge Transfer • RP-1 Flexibility
27
Thank You!
28
29
NEXT SESSION: QUALITY MONITORING Presented by: Darrell Dirks
Quality Management Lead
• Quality Monitoring Background
• Purpose of a new QM Regime
• Expected Outcomes
• New QM Approach and Methodology
• QM Plan concept
Quality Monitoring Presenta1on Agenda
30
• RP-‐n Contracts have been audited extensively (internally and externally) over the past few years, Key findings:
• Tolerance to risk within the federal government context has shiKed significantly.
• PWGSC must demonstrate ongoing due diligence; ü Monitoring acQviQes were not well aligned with idenQfied risks. ü Tools were not always formalized in approved and documented procedures. ü Inconsistent applicaQon by the regions. ü QM acQviQes were targeted (judgemental). ü There were inadequate financial controls and capaciQes to ensure costs as per the basis of
payment are adequately substanQated. ü A formalized process is required to analyse and administer findings related to assurance
work such as QM, reviews and audits.
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach Background
31
• The Real Property RP-‐n Contractors (RPC) are required to have a comprehensive
Quality Management System (QMS).
• PWGSC would not gain by duplicaQng this system.
• Knowing we cannot check everything, obtaining reasonable assurance.
• The Oversight Framework includes both Technical and Financial Quality Monitoring acQviQes disQnct from the RPC’s QMS, but has related components.
• PWGSC to maintain objecQvity such that our assessments are fair and substanQated.
• PWGSC’s Quality Monitoring performed by undertaking mulQdisciplinary evaluaQons of the RPC’s QMS, including applicable processes, procedures, acQviQes and performance data.
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach Purpose of new QM Regime
32
The QM Regime allows us to:
• Change Management and collecQve behaviour change moving towards Con1nual Improvement.
• CerQfy that work has been performed and services rendered in accordance with terms and condiQons of the Contract.
• Provide reasonable assurance that the RPC is conforming to contract requirements & Service Delivery Regime (SDR).
• Provide reasonable assurance that PWGSC & OGD Custodians are complying with legislaQve and applicable policy requirements.
• Provide reasonable assurance that the RPCs are providing complete, accurate and authorized billings / invoices to PWGSC.
• Supports in part our ability to express the QM Opinion.
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach Expected Outcomes
33
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach Finding the Sweet Spot
Time
High
Level of Assurance
Level of Effort
Contract award
...
Final Acceptance
Sweet Spot
Low
Level
(assurance / eff
ort)
The Sweet Spot is the point in Qme where we reach the opQmal level of assurance (maximum) with the opQmal level of effort (minimum).
34
• Lessons Learned from previous RP-‐n contract mechanisms (AFD 1998/2005) and other similar outsourcing models (BCBC, Transport Québec, etc.)
• ConsultaQons with various RPB resources including AcquisiQon Branch and the Chief Audit and EvaluaQon ExecuQve.
• Conducted research of industry best pracQces on quality management (ISO, Six-‐Sigma, TQM, etc.).
• Engaged NaQonal and Regional resources on the development of refocused approach (risk and quality specialists).
• Consulted with professional staQsQcian to develop random sampling methodology component of the model.
• Piloted new approach in the RP-‐2 Contract live operaQng environment to test and validate the basic principles of the model.
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach The new QM Approach: How We Got Here
35
The new QM Regime: ü Based on risk. ü Fully documented with processes linked to the RPB’s policy
framework.
ü Relying on the consistent execuQon of all QM acQviQes across all contracts based on clearly defined roles and responsibiliQes.
ü Requiring that all findings be evidence-‐based and well documented (audit trail).
ü Ensuring that findings idenQfied as part of the QM are treated appropriately by the RPC through their QMS in the spirit of conQnual improvement and relaQonship management.
RP-‐n Integrated Quality Monitoring Approach Basic Principles of new QM Regime
36
Quality Monitoring Plan (QMP) Process
38
Technical QM • Determine Priority RaQng of each service area based on inherent risks and
effecQveness of non-‐QM controls (internal Procedures).
• IdenQfy the Level of Assurance desired based on organizaQon’s tolerance to risks.
• Prepare QMP opQons based on variable risk tolerance targets.
• Implement the QM plan acQviQes.
• Provide input to the QM opinion
The Oversight Commieee expresses judgement (the QM Opinion) on the quality of the services delivered by the RPC, based on all QM acQviQes executed.
Annual Quality Monitoring Plan Developing the QM Plan (SDR, Deliverables, QM Reviews)
38
Financial QM • Financial data integrity examinaQon.
• ConducQng analysis and reconciliaQons.
• Select transacQons for verificaQon (sampling).
• Obtain supporQng documentaQon and explanaQons as required.
• Aeain reasonable assurance that the RPCs are providing complete, accurate and authorized billings / invoices to PWGSC.
• Provide input to the QM opinion
The Oversight Commieee expresses judgement (the QM Opinion) on the quality of the services delivered by the RPC, based on all QM acQviQes executed.
Annual Quality Monitoring Plan Developing the QM Plan
39
QM Result
2
4
3
5
1
Actual Level of Assurance
QM Opinion
Tolerance Threshold
Desired Level of Assurance(Basic + Scalable)
Sample Size
Level of Effort(Hours)
Low 5 238 1,903Low 5 238 1,189Low 5 141 283n/a 5 0 0Low 5 118 474
3,849
Option ASystem-‐Generated Baseline
Optimal Model
QM Control Mechanisms
Eff. Eff. Eff.
50 -‐ 100 1
50 1,200 100 2
50 2,000 100 3
50 4,000 100 5
50 -‐ 100 1
Grand Total: 250 7,200 500
Basic QM Functions
SDR ReviewDeliverables for Acceptance
Performance Measurement
Basic Level of AssuranceLoE LoE LoE
Expected Outcomes
• QM Opinion
• Reasonable
assurance
QM controls Scalable (Contextua
l
opQons)
• Tolerance
threshold
• Desired Level of
Assurance
Grand Total: Cleaning
Service Category
Maintenance MgmtOcc. Health and SafetyPDS Category IIBuilding Mgmt Plan (BMP)
PLANNING MODEL
Priority Rating
Annual Quality Monitoring Plan Developing the QM Plan
The QM plan is generated from a 4 level exercise.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Basic QM FuncQons
Non-‐scalable
(Hard to change)
• SOW
• Performance
measurement
regime
Priority RaQng
(Revisit each year)
• Risk Assessment
• EffecQveness of
non-‐QM
controls
Level 4
QM Plan
40
Building Mgmt Plan (BMP) 5
Cleaning 1
Actual Level of Assurance
Service CategoryQM
Opinion
Annual Quality Monitoring Plan Defini1ons: QM Opinion vs. Level of Assurance
“Level of Assurance” refers to the accuracy of our assessment, which is
commensurate with the level of effort ($$$).
“QM Opinion” refers to our judgement of the quality of the services delivered by the RP Contractor and “value for money”.
EXAMPLE A
Example A: We’ve assessed that the RPC is doing an acceptable job ( ) and we are very confident
about this assessment.
Example B: We’ve assessed that the RPC is doing an acceptable job BUT have liele confidence in the accuracy of our assessment.
Outcomes
Reasonable assurance that...
QM Plan
EXAMPLE B
41
Annual Quality Monitoring Plan QMP Results
The Results:
• Are shared with the RPC as part of their QMS, in support of Con1nual Improvement.
• May include financial adjustments to RPC billings / invoices.
• Issues idenQfied in QMP are intended to be collecQvely worked between PWGSC and the RPC moving towards Con1nual Improvement.
• Assures the Custodians that legislaQve and applicable policy requirements are being met.
• Influences the next QM planning cycle.
• Supports in part our ability to express the QM Opinion. 42
Next Steps
• 2015-16 QMP:
ü Feedback from RPC on our QM approach
ü Lessons Learned from the RP-2 Pilot and Tools
ü Financial QM Results to be periodically shared through the Technical Authorities
ü Adjusting and calibrating current QMP
ü Ongoing communication and engagement with key stakeholders
• 2016-17 QMP:
ü Implementation of the 16/17 QMP (Spring 2016)
43
Ques0ons ?...
44