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