Archived – Audit of the Implementation of the Economic Action Plan

Archived information

The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Project Number 6B224
Final Audit Report
December 17, 2010

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

On January 27, 2009, the Government of Canada tabled the 2009 Budget that included funding for a stimulus plan to counter the effects of the global recession.  The plan, known as Canada’s Economic Action Plan (EAP), provided almost $30 billion in support of Canada’s economy.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada received approximately $450 million over two years for EAP funding.  Of this, $217 million was approved for projects related to Small Craft Harbours (including the Pangnirtung Harbour), $38 million to address maintenance of federal laboratories, $16.4 million for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites, and $175 million for Canadian Coast Guard projects.

In March 2009, the Auditor General announced that her office would be conducting an audit of the Government’s Economic Action Plan.  In anticipation of the Auditor General’s work on the EAP, the Internal Audit Directorate was asked by the Budget Implementation Committee (BIC) (the departmental EAP oversight committee) to undertake an audit readiness assessment of the department’s EAP initiatives to ensure that funding is being spent effectively and that appropriate control frameworks are in place. 

The audit readiness assessment report identified deficiencies in the implementation of the Small Craft Harbours, Federal Laboratories and Contaminated Sites EAP projects in the areas of governance, risk and controls. A commitment to conduct additional work on the implementation of the EAP was identified in the 2010-11 to 2012-13 Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan. This engagement constitutes an audit of the implementation of the Economic Action Plan.

1.2 Objective and Scope

The objectives for the audit were to assess:

  • the extent to which recommendations from the Readiness Assessment have been implemented and whether the actions taken were adequate and addressed the intent of the recommendations; and
  • the adequacy and effectiveness of the management and delivery of EAP projects. 

The scope of the engagement focused on EAP project activity undertaken since April 1, 2009.  The engagement included an examination of the implementation of recommendations contained in the EAP Readiness Report for Small Craft Harbours – Repair and Maintenance, Federal Laboratories and Federal Contaminated Sites EAP projects, and was carried out in Regional Offices and at National Headquarters. 

Also, selected EAP projects from the Canadian Coast Guard, Small Craft Harbours, Federal Laboratories and Federal Contaminated Sites were examined to assess project management and delivery aspects.  Regions and initiatives were selected based on a risk assessment.

1.3 Statement of Assurance

In our opinion, the auditors have examined sufficient, relevant evidence and obtained sufficient information and explanations to provide a high level of assurance on the reported opinion or conclusions.

1.4 Summary of Observations and Recommendations

The engagement attempted to assess the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented and whether the actions taken adequately addressed the intent of the recommendations. Based on interviews and a review of documents obtained from the program areas, our assessment determined that the recommendations have been fully implemented, with the exception of one recommendation for the Pangnirtung Project. While the intent of the recommendations of the readiness assessment have been addressed, the following observations outline areas for improvement to further refine or clarify the program frameworks and related tools and templates developed by the program areas.

  • Strategies and procedures as stated in the Program Management Frameworks are being followed; however, the level of file documentation and the use of tools and templates are not consistent across the regions.
  • The process for and the development of project risk assessments, though documented, are not consistently followed across the regions.
  • The templates developed as part of the program management frameworks may result in a duplication of information and cause the process of documenting project activities to be inefficient.

The audit also attempted to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the management and delivery of EAP projects. A review of a sample of project files was undertaken to determine the extent to which the processes outlined in the program management frameworks are being followed and whether the roles and responsibilities are understood. The following observations are the result of this assessment.

  • There is a need to review the contracting mechanisms to ensure that they are appropriate for the delivery of SCH projects when partnering with local Harbour Authorities.
  • Current systems in place in SCH do not meet the needs of regional organizations to monitor and track project progress and to fulfil their reporting obligations leading to the development of parallel information systems.

A review of the management action plan for the Pangnirtung project was conducted as well as a review of the project files. The following observations were made:

  • The project charter developed for the Pangnirtung Project lacks the level of detail expected for a project of this magnitude.
  • A formal risk assessment was not conducted for the Pangnirtung Project.

This portion of the engagement built on the work that was conducted by the IAD in early spring of 2010. The issues that were found during the review were shared with senior management. The work conducted during this engagement revealed that these issues have not been resolved and continue to be a concern. The nature of these issues warrants that they be treated separately through a management letter addressed to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Ecosystems and Fisheries Management. For this reason, they are not presented in this report.

1.5 Conclusion

The audit readiness assessment indicated that governance, risk management and control mechanisms in place were adequate but that they were not always documented. Much work has been done to implement the recommendations of the report; as a result, the processes, roles and responsibilities as well as the governance structure are generally well documented.

It is evident that the implementation of the EAP was a challenge in many respects but one that was met to the best of the ability and capacity of current systems and resources of the Department. Projects are managed and monitored closely both from a financial and non-financial perspective, there is a strong oversight mechanism in place and it is evident that all who are involved in the delivery of EAP projects are fully engaged and committed to ensuring that they are delivered successfully.

Top of page

2.0  INTRODUCTION

On January 27, 2009, the Government of Canada tabled the 2009 Budget that included funding for a stimulus plan to counter the effects of the global recession.  The plan, known as Canada’s Economic Action Plan (EAP), provided almost $30 billion in support of Canada’s economy and is based on three guiding principles - that projects supported under the EAP be timely, targeted and temporary to support the economy when it is most needed; support Canadian families and sectors most affected; ensure maximum impact for Canadian jobs and output; and protect Canada’s fiscal position by targeting new spending in the next two years.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada received approximately $450 million over two years for EAP funding.  Of this, $217 million for projects related to Small Craft Harbours (including the Pangnirtung Harbour), $38 million to address maintenance of federal laboratories, $16.4 million for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites, and $175 million for Canadian Coast Guard projects.

In a letter dated March 5, 2009, to the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the Auditor General announced that her office would be conducting an audit of the Government’s Economic Action Plan.  In anticipation of the Auditor General’s work on the EAP, the Internal Audit Directorate was asked by the Budget Implementation Committee (BIC) (the departmental EAP oversight committee) to undertake an audit readiness assessment of the department’s EAP initiatives to ensure that funding is being spent effectively and that appropriate control frameworks are in place.  The objectives of the readiness assessment were to assess whether appropriate governance, risk management and controls are in place and to identify any significant gaps in the management control framework requiring management attention.  The readiness assessment did not constitute an audit of EAP initiatives, or of specific projects or transactions.

The Internal Audit Directorate identified deficiencies, through the readiness assessment, in the implementation of the Small Craft Harbours Repair and Maintenance, Federal Laboratories and Contaminated Sites EAP projects in the areas of governance, risk and controls.

The Readiness Assessment report and accompanying Management Action Plan were presented to the Budget Implementation Committee on February 22, 2010, and approved by the Departmental Audit Committee on March 18, 2010.  The requirement for the Internal Audit Directorate to carryout additional work on EAP was identified in the 2010-11 to 2012-13 Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan.  This audit engagement fulfils this requirement.

2.1 Objectives and Scope

The objectives for the audit were to assess:

  • the extent to which recommendations from the Readiness Assessment have been implemented and whether the actions taken were adequate and addressed the intent of the recommendations; and
  • the adequacy and effectiveness of the management and delivery of EAP projects. 

The scope of the engagement focused on EAP project activity undertaken since April 1, 2009.  The engagement included an examination of the implementation of recommendations contained in the EAP Readiness Report for Small Craft Harbours – Repair and Maintenance, Federal Laboratories and Federal Contaminated Sites EAP projects, and was carried out in Regional Offices and at National Headquarters. 

Also, selected EAP projects from the Canadian Coast Guard, Small Craft Harbours, Federal Laboratories and Federal Contaminated Sites were examined to assess project management and delivery aspects.  Regions and initiatives were selected based on a risk assessment.

2.2 Methodology

The approach to the audit followed the requirements of the TB Policy on Internal Audit.  This means that sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the conclusions reached and contained in this report.  The conclusions are based on a comparison of situations, as they existed at the time of the audit and against the audit criteria.  It should be noted that the conclusions are only applicable for the areas examined.

The planning phase of the audit involved various procedures including: documentation review and interviews/teleconferences with representatives from the following regions/sectors: Small Craft Harbours (Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector), Real Property (Human Resources and Corporate Services Sector), the Canadian Coast Guard and the Chief Financial Officer.

Audit criteria were determined based on information gathered during the planning phase and the audit readiness report.  The audit criteria served as the basis for developing the audit approach and detailed audit program for the conduct phase.
  
During the examination phase of the audit, the activities in Pacific, Central and Arctic, Maritimes and Gulf, and Newfoundland and Labrador regional offices as well as HQ were examined in detail during the period of August to October 2010.
 
The principal audit techniques used included:

  • Documentation Review – Thedocumentation that was subject to examination included, but was not limited to,policies, directives, frameworks, and procedures relevant to the management and implementation of the projects funded under the EAP

  • Project File Review – Detailed project file reviews were conducted using an audit program developed to assess compliance with related audit criteria.
    • To confirm the effectiveness of the management of individual projects, file documentation was examined for a sample of projects in the four regions visited (with the exception of Central and Arctic region where only the Pangnirtung project file was examined).

  • Interviews – Interviews were conducted at HQ with representatives from the Small Craft Harbours and Real Property Branches and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) as well as the CFO.  Interviews were further conducted at each of the four regions visited, including management and staff responsible for the management and monitoring of projects.  Interview guides were developed for interviews conducted, taking into consideration the objectives of the audit and the audit criteria developed.

A quality assurance review was conducted for this engagement prior to presentation to the Departmental Audit Committee.

Top of page

3.0  OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The audit readiness assessment report made a number of recommendations that served to further strengthen or clarify the governance, risk management and controls surrounding the implementation of EAP projects.

This engagement had as its first objective to assess the extent to which these recommendations have been implemented and whether the actions taken addressed the intent of the recommendations. Based on our review of documentation provided by the programs, all of the recommendations have been fully implemented with the exception of one related to the Pangnirtung Project. While our assessment determined that the actions taken addressed the intent of the recommendations, areas for improvement were identified and are described in the following sections of this report.

The second objective of the engagement was to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the management and delivery of EAP projects. Site visits to four regions were completed and a selection of project files was examined to determine the extent to which the processes documented in the program management frameworks are being followed and to assess the adequacy of project management activities. Interviews with key contacts in the regions were held to gain insight into the practices in place within the region to monitor and manage the implementation of projects.

Our assessment revealed that processes as documented in the program management framework are being followed but that they were not always fully documented in the files. In terms of the management and delivery of EAP projects, the project management practices are adequate but the degree of monitoring was not always evident in the file documentation. Details are provided in the following sections.

3.1 Project Documentation

Strategies and procedures as stated in the Program Management Frameworks are being followed; however, the level of file documentation and the use of tools and templates are not consistent across the regions.

Much work has been done by the programs to address the recommendations of the audit readiness report related to documentation. In response to the recommendations, each program developed a program management framework that describes each phase of project management, roles and responsibilities, oversight, monitoring and reporting requirements. However, the expectations for file documentation remain unclear. In the SCH framework for example, the Project Management Checklist under section 4.3 states: “the following checklist identifies the typical document requirements for each WBS element”. This could be interpreted to mean that the regions can decide what documents to keep on file. It is especially vague for projects managed by PWGSC; there was uncertainty as to what documents they were expected to obtain from PWGSC and keep on file. Our review of a sample of files found instances where certain documents like project charters and close-out documents were not on file. It should be noted that some of the files examined pre-date the program management frameworks which were developed in early 2010/11.

Also, the Framework indicates that when in partnership with PWGSC, some or all project management functions may be delegated. The audit team observed inconsistencies across regions in the approach to monitoring and record keeping. While some regions used the services of PWGSC for contracting, they also delegated all responsibility for contract information management to PWGSC. This meant that some of the programs had information gaps in their files that would not allow a trail of information from contracting to project payment. Other regions saw the need to keep copies of PWGSC contracting information on file to support payment records.

The program management frameworks included a number of templates, one of which is the project file checklist. A file checklist was developed for each of the three programs, each slightly different. The checklist is used to ensure proper and consistent file documentation.

Through a review of a sample of regional project files, inconsistencies were found across the regions in its use. In one region visited, very little use of the checklist was found for any of the programs. In fact, when asked about the checklists, little was known of its existence. In another region, the checklist was found on file but it was not completed properly in all cases and while elements of the checklist were completed, the information was not always found on file.

According to the program management frameworks, each project is required to have a project charter with the exception of SCH projects less than $50K for which the project charter is optional. The project charter outlines the expectations of the project, the roles and responsibilities, budget and completion criteria. The file review revealed that the project charters varied by region. For SCH projects, the project charters varied in the amount of detail contained in them. For projects managed in-house, it was noted that the project charter was quite brief compared to those managed by PWGSC in other regions. According to the program management framework, a simplified project charter can be used for projects managed in-house. While this is a good practice for smaller projects, the framework should clearly state what is expected in a simplified charter and it would also be useful to provide an example for reference. It should also state the requirements for smaller versus larger projects.

It was noted that DFO project managers and the regional engineers work closely with PWGSC or the contractors, as applicable, for managing their projects. Meetings are held on a regular basis with PWGSC (for PWGSC managed projects), contractors and harbour authorities to discuss the progress of projects, issues, budgets and expenditures. Additionally, the project managers meet on a regular basis with the Regional Director; however, these meetings are not always documented. Project sites are regularly visited to monitor the progress of the work. These site visits also are not always documented in the file.

Recommendation

  • 1. The ADM-HRCS and the ADM-EFM should further refine the program management frameworks to clarify the minimum requirements for project file documentation including those projects managed by PWGSC. The frameworks should also define expectations for the development of project charters for smaller versus larger projects.
  • 2. The ADM-HRCS and the ADM-EFM should maintain meeting minutes and ensure that site visits are logged on file to have a record of the monitoring efforts that are currently being conducted.

3.2 Risk Management

The process for and the development of project risk assessments, though documented, are not consistently followed across the regions.

Without proper risk documentation on file, there is no evidence to support or to demonstrate that the program has assessed the implementation risks correctly and is positioned to manage those risks. The lack of documentation also makes the task of monitoring and reporting on risks difficult. Without a clear assessment, the ability to develop a mitigation strategy is impaired.

Small Craft Harbours

According to the program management framework, the project charter is required to include a risk assessment identifying and assessing the risks of not proceeding with the project and the risks associated with the implementation of the project. In the Newfoundland and Labrador, and Maritimes and Gulf regions, it was noted that PWGSC prepares the project charters using their own template which does not contain risk information. For the sample of projects examined, the risk assessment was found in the Project Approval Document (PAD). There was no other risk document on file other than the risks identified in the PAD. In addition, there was little documentation on the monitoring and reporting of risks to demonstrate ongoing risk management of individual projects. It was noted that the risk management of projects was the responsibility of PWGSC; however, the framework states that while both project leaders (DFO) and project managers (PWGSC) are responsible for risk management, project leaders are accountable for ensuring they are identified and managed.

In the Pacific region, a simplified project charter is prepared for its projects as these are managed by in-house resources. The project charter included a risk section that outlined the risk drivers relevant to the project and an assessment of the project risk profile including consideration of strategic, safety, environmental, timing and budget risks. For the sample of projects examined, it was noted that regardless of the dollar value of the projects, the mitigation plan outlined in the project charters comprised only of a checklist of actions where those pertaining to the project were selected. There was no description of how the actions selected would mitigate the risks identified.

For example, in the case of one project, the mitigation plan showed the following actions or requirements, “habitat authorization”, “BMPs during construction”, “communications plan”, and “EA Pre-Screening”. While this simplified approach to developing a risk mitigation strategy may be practical for smaller, lower dollar value projects, it is insufficient for larger ones. For larger, higher dollar value projects, this is not descriptive enough to demonstrate whether the mitigation strategy is adequate to manage the risks identified. The program management framework does not describe the risk management expectations for smaller in-house projects versus larger ones. In addition, it was noted that there was a lack of documented evidence of risk monitoring on file.

Federal Laboratories and Contaminated Sites

Based on a review of a sample of project files in the Newfoundland and Labrador, and Maritimes and Gulf regions, very little risk information was found. For federal laboratories projects, we noted that the risk information on file was at a very high level and prepared by HQ with regional input. For contaminated sites projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador region, a Risk Statement and Risk Register was developed for projects at the assessment stage. One has not been completed for projects at the remediation stage.

The contaminated sites projects in the Pacific region had a comprehensive Risk Statement and Risk Register on file for their projects, as required by the Project Management Framework.  For federal laboratories projects, a Risk and Issues Register was on file where the risk of the project warranted one. There were general risk assessments contained in the Project Charter for both projects reviewed.

Canadian Coast Guard

CCG had both an overarching EAP project risk management plan as well as EAP project specific risk management plans. Risk documentation was sufficient to fulfil both the documentation requirement as well as provide a foundation for proper program and risk management.

Recommendation

  • 3. The ADM-EFM and the ADM-HRCS should ensure that regional organizations are aware of the requirements to complete and document the risk management activities. It is also recommended that expectations for documenting risks for smaller projects be defined in the project management frameworks.

3.3 Templates and Tools

The templates developed as part of the program management frameworks may result in a duplication of information and cause the process of documenting project activities to be inefficient.

The programs developed many templates for the Regions to use as guidelines. However, it was observed that some templates may not add value to the project management process. For example, it was observed that the Issue Log which was developed by the Office of Environmental Assessment for Contaminated Sites projects was filled out with one or two words to indicate the issues have been dealt with. The information contained in the log has been identified in other documents; therefore, the completion of the log provided no added value.

In some instances, it was identified on the project file checklist that while a document on the checklist was not on file, another document on file contained the same elements and therefore met the requirement. It is therefore evident that the templates could be revisited to ensure the process of documenting the various project monitoring activities is efficient and avoids duplication of information.

Recommendation

  • 4. The ADM-HRCS and the ADM-EFM should request that a review of the templates currently in use be conducted, in consultation with the regions, to ensure that they are relevant and to avoid duplication of effort.

3.4 Project Delivery

There is a need to review the funding and contracting mechanisms to ensure that they are appropriate for the delivery of SCH projects when partnering with local Harbour Authorities.

The SCH mandate is to ensure the harbours within its envelope of assets are safe and accessible to commercial fish harvesters and other recreational users. One strategy that SCH uses to achieve its mandate is to promote the formation of Harbour Authorities to ensure local control over commercial fishing harbours. The regional offices have built close relationships with the local harbour authorities and work in partnership with them to ensure the harbours are maintained in a state of good repair. To implement some of the SCH repair and maintenance projects, it is often more cost effective and beneficial in terms of building the capacity of the local harbour authority for them to manage the project on behalf of the Department. However, the program is limited in the methods available to them to formalize that partnership that, at the same time, complies with current Government of Canada procurement policies and regulations.

The SCH program has used a number of vehicles to partner with the Harbour Authorities, one of which is the use of contribution agreements. The choice of vehicle varies from region to region; for instance, the Maritimes & Gulf region have issued a number of contribution agreements with local Harbour Authorities to accomplish smaller projects while the Pacific region uses ACANs. A special authority was obtained to enter into a sole source arrangement with the municipality of Pangnirtung for the implementation of the Pangnirtung Harbour Project.

The use of contribution agreements using Vote 5 is not defined in any program management framework or departmental policy, and a special authority was not obtained from Treasury Board for its use. For this reason, some regions were reluctant to use them for their projects.

The question of using contribution agreements for projects funded from Vote 5 versus other vehicles is currently being studied by the CFO at the request of the Treasury Board. The outcome will be to request approval from the Treasury Board on the method that best meets the requirements of the program with consideration as to the benefits to local harbour communities. For this reason, as the study is ongoing, no recommendation is offered at this time.

3.5 Project Monitoring

Current systems in place in SCH do not meet the needs of regional organizations to monitor and track project progress and to fulfil their reporting obligations leading to the development of black books.

The SCH sector has a system called the Information Portuaire - Port Information System (IPI) which is a system that stores historical and current information on SCH’s inventory of harbours and related maintenance and enhancement projects. For the EAP initiative, there was an increased number of projects to implement and to facilitate the management and monitoring of these projects, each region visited for the audit had developed a tracking document using Excel. The spreadsheet varied from region to region but essentially included the same information such as project milestones, budget and expenditures, key contact information and project status information. The development of these tools was identified as essential because the IPI system did not have the reporting functionalities required by the regions to allow them to comply with all the monitoring and reporting requirements.

While these tracking tools are useful in providing at-a-glance information on all ongoing projects, it is essential that they be viewed as complementing and not replacing existing corporate systems; duplication of effort should be avoided. The use of Excel as a monitoring tool has its limitations and risks in terms of data integrity and requires that appropriate safeguards and data management practices be put in place. Periodic reconciliations to IPI and MRS should be conducted to ensure the information is complete and accurate. This is especially important when these tools are relied upon for reporting and decision making. In addition, as with any system, supporting documentation should be retained to substantiate the information entered.

Through an examination of a sample of project files, we attempted to verify the accuracy of the budget and expenditure information contained in these tracking documents. We found discrepancies in some of the files examined and in some cases there was a lack of supporting documentation on file to be able to complete the validation exercise.

Work is currently underway to enhance the current system’s functionalities. One consideration is to deploy across the country an extraction tool called “SCHMIR” (SCH Management Information Retriever) currently being used in the Newfoundland and Labrador region. It is not known at this time if the new changes will meet the needs of the regional organizations and replace the need for parallel information systems.

As a result of this work and given that it is ongoing, no recommendation is offered at this time.

3.6 Construction of a Small Craft Harbour at Pangnirtung, Nunavut

This project had a number of difficulties and challenges. Given the struggles of implementing a project of this complexity, and the issues that arose early on in the construction phase, there was a need for increased senior management involvement and oversight. The DG of SCH participated on the Technical Committee, Oversight Committee and Steering Committees. In addition, there were weekly briefings with the Deputy Minister and bi-weekly updates to the BIC as well as numerous other reporting requirements to central agencies.

This portion of the engagement built on the work that was conducted by the IAD in early spring of 2010. The issues that were found during this review were shared with senior management. The work conducted during this engagement revealed that these issues have not been resolved and continue to be a concern. The nature of these issues warrants that they be treated separately through a management letter addressed to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Ecosystems and Fisheries Management. For this reason, they are not presented in this report.

The readiness assessment identified a number of deficiencies regarding the governance and control mechanisms in place. The management action plans prepared in response to the recommendations were monitored on a bi-weekly basis by the Budget Implementation Committee. All but one recommendation remains outstanding. The following is a summary of the observations resulting from the assessment of the management action plan that was developed in response to the recommendations of the readiness assessment.

3.2.1   The project charter developed for the Pangnirtung Project lacks the level of detail expected for a project of this magnitude.

At the time of the readiness assessment, there was no formal governance structure in place, a project charter was prepared but not finalized and roles and responsibilities for headquarters and the regions were not clearly defined and understood.

A project charter between the Department and PWGSC for the first phase of the project was developed; however, the first phase was not managed by PWGSC as originally planned. The project charter was not updated to reflect this. In addition, the description of the project and the roles and responsibilities of the various key players was quite brief. A project charter has been developed but has not been signed for the second phase of the project.

Recommendation

  • 5. The ADM-EFM should ensure that the Project Charter be further developed to include details of the risks related to the project, the risk mitigation strategy and clarification on the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of headquarters and the region.

3.2.2   A formal risk assessment was not conducted for the Pangnirtung Project.

As stated in the readiness assessment report, risks were considered for this project, however, there was no formal risk assessment prepared. Risks are identified in various project approval documents but there remains no documented mitigation strategy. The project charter does not include risk assessment or mitigation information.

Therefore, the recommendation as stated in the readiness assessment is still valid and remains outstanding.

Recommendation

  • 6. The ADM-EFM ensures that a risk management strategy should be prepared for the Pangnirtung Harbour Project. The risks and mitigation strategies should be identified, and monitored and updated regularly during the course of the project. Accountabilities should be assigned for the implementation of the strategy.

Top of page

4.0 CONCLUSION

The audit readiness assessment indicated that governance, risk management and control mechanisms in place were adequate but that they were not always documented. Much work has been done to implement the recommendations of the report; as a result, the processes, roles and responsibilities as well as the governance structure are generally well documented.

It is evident that the implementation of the EAP was a challenge in many respects but one that was met to the best of the ability and capacity of current systems and resources of the Department. Projects are managed and monitored closely both from a financial and non-financial perspective, there is a strong oversight mechanism in place and it is evident that all who are involved in the delivery of EAP projects are fully engaged and committed to ensuring that they are delivered successfully.

5.0 MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

Recommendations

Management Action Plan

Status Report Update

Actions Completed

Actions Outstanding

Target Date

  • 1. The ADM-HRCS and the ADM-EFM should further refine the program management frameworks to clarify the minimum requirements for project file documentation including those projects managed by PWGSC.

 

ADM-HRCS:
Modernizing Federal Labs and FCSAP will review program management frameworks to determine if further clarification is required as to minimum requirements for project file documentation.

ADM-EFM:
SCH will be developing a Program Management Framework for the overall SCH Program in 2011-12 (the current one was for EAP only).  This recommendation will be dealt with in the context of the new Program Management Framework.

 

 

January 2011

 

 

 

 

March 2012

  • The frameworks should also define expectations for the development of project charters for smaller versus larger projects.

ADM-HRCS:
RPSS: This will include defining expectations for the development of project charters for smaller vs larger projects.

DG, RPSS will send a memo to the regions to clarify documentation requirements.

 

 

January 2011

  • 2. The ADM-HRCS and the ADM-EFM should maintain meeting minutes and ensure that site visits are logged on file to have a record of all the monitoring efforts that are currently being conducted.

ADM-HRCS:
DG, RPSS will send a memo to clarify requirement for regions to maintain minutes of meetings and to document site visits on file as evidence that monitoring efforts are being conducted.

ADM-EFM:
SCH will ensure that this requirement is included in the SCH Program Management Framework described under #1 above.

 

 

December 2010

 

 

 

 

March 2012

  • 3. The ADM- EFM and the ADM- HRCS should ensure that regional organizations are aware of the requirements to complete and document the risk management activities. It is also recommended that expectations for documenting risks for smaller projects be defined in the project management frameworks.

 

ADM-HRCS:
DG, RPSS will send a memo to regions to clarify requirements for regions to complete and document risk management activities.  Risk management requirements for smaller projects will also be defined in the memo.

ADM-EFM:
SCH will ensure that this requirement is included in the SCH Program Management Framework described under #1 above.

 

 

December 2010

 

 

 

 

 

March 2012

  • 4. The ADM- HRCS and the ADM- EFM should request that a review of the templates currently in use be conducted, in consultation with the regions, to ensure that they are relevant and to avoid duplication of effort.

ADM-HRCS:
Modernizing Federal Labs and FCSAP will review templates developed to determine if overlap exists. Redundant templates will be discontinued via an e-mail to the regions.

ADM-EFM:
The templates developed as part of the EAP Audit Readiness exercise were approved by the SCH National Management Committee.  Their relevancy will be assessed in the development of the overall SCH Program Management Framework.

 

 

January 2011

 

 

 

 

March 2012

  • 5. The ADM-EFM should ensure that the Project Charter for the Pangnirtung Harbour Project be further developed to include details of the risks related to the project, the risk mitigation strategy and clarification on the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of headquarters and the region.

 

ADM-EFM:
SCH will ensure that a detailed Project Charter between PWGSC and DFO for Phase 2 of the project is finalized and concluded. The Charter will address risks, mitigation strategies, and roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities between parties for Phase 2.

 

 

January 31, 2011

  • 6. The ADM-EFM should ensure that a risk management strategy be prepared for the Pangnirtung Harbour Project. The risks and mitigation strategies should be identified, and monitored and updated regularly during the course of the project. Accountabilities should be assigned for the implantation of the strategy.

 

ADM-EFM:
Prior to the commencement of Phase 2 of the project, SCH will develop a risk-management strategy with clear accountability lines. The strategy will be monitored and updated regularly during the course of the project.

 

 

March 2011