What we heard: A summary of consultations on the draft vendor performance management scorecards

August 2021

The Government of Canada wants to transform the way it does business by encouraging good vendor performance and positioning itself as a buyer of choice.

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is leading the development of a new Vendor Performance Management Policy which aims to:

“We agree with the concept of a rating system to evaluate performance that begins with a pilot-based approach in developing a vendor performance management framework.

We also agree with ongoing feedback on performance throughout the life of the contract and the opportunity to provide feedback which will ultimately result in potential changes that would permit a more efficiently delivered project for all parties.”

- Request for information (RFI) respondent

Through extensive consultations with client departments, the vendor community and industry associations, a draft policy was developed which will be piloted through select procurements.

Request for information

Industry feedback is critical to the success of this initiative and an important measure to ensure that the needs of all stakeholders are being heard and met. In March 2021, PSPC published a RFI on buyandsell.gc.ca. The objective was to share information regarding the progress of PSPC’s pilot strategy for implementing the policy and to solicit input from industry on proposed pilot materials (scorecards, key performance indicators) and evaluation processes.

The RFI was open to all industries and vendors. Following multiple requests, the RFI was extended until May 2021 to allow stakeholders additional time to provide a response. Input was particularly encouraged from the vendor communities related to the initial 5 pilot procurement categories:

  1. apparel
  2. construction
  3. fairness monitoring
  4. marine/small vessels
  5. task based informatics professional services (TBIPS)

The RFI generated 824 unique views and 466 downloads. A total of 13 responses were submitted by individual vendors and industry associations.

Feedback received was overwhelmingly positive. Vendors indicated that they understood the purpose and supported the approach to developing a standardized approach for assessing vendor performance. The responses also indicated that the categories of performance measurement aligned with similar approaches used by vendors internally and their clients.

Vendor consultation and engagement: Vendor performance management (20210786)

Feedback

Vendor commentary was detailed and specific. For simplicity, feedback was reviewed and condensed into 3 common themes:

Clarity of scorecard

Vendors suggested alternative wording to clarify and refine the language to remove ambiguity and facilitate uniform application across different contracting personnel. There were several comments and recommendations to improve the clarity, consistency and objectivity of the scorecards, which were updated accordingly.

Consistency of application

Vendors expressed concern about receiving scores from different business owners and the possibility of inconsistent scoring. For standardized evaluations across the government, it is paramount for business owners and contracting authorities to possess the same understanding and application of the scoring methodology.

To that end, comprehensive training and guidance material has been developed that contains detailed instruction on how to apply scoring in a fair, objective and consistent manner. Training courses for contracting authorities and business owners are being developed to support the evaluation process and their effectiveness will be evaluated throughout piloting.

Industry engagement

Feedback highlighted the need for PSPC to continue its consultations with vendors as the policy and its processes are updated and implemented.

PSPC is committed to ongoing engagement with the vendor community throughout the implementation of the policy. Feedback will continue to inform the policy and any related processes. Implementation and progress updates will be communicated to ensure policy development is transparent and fair.

Conclusion

An effective policy will deliver best value for Canada through consideration of past performance when awarding federal government contracts. Feedback from industry showed support for the pilot approach, and an understanding of the intention behind it, with comments indicating consistency with industry standard models employed by other large buyers.

Commentary and suggestions from the RFI have been incorporated into the pilot documents where applicable. Throughout the pilots, feedback will be collected, analysed, and used to drive improvements to the policy. Ongoing communications is key to the successful launch of the policy and PSPC is committed to providing regular updates to industry on the policy development.

Annex A: Request for information questionnaire

Please see below the 9 questions seeking feedback on proposed pilot scorecard and approach.

Question 1

Which specific scorecard are you providing feedback on? Please indicate the annex or industry.

Question 2

Do the scorecard’s categories (quality, management, cost and schedule) reflect your current business as well as industry-wide benchmarks for success? If not, please explain.

Question 3

Are the indicators and rating scales appropriate for incentivizing performance? If not, please explain.

Question 4

Do your other customers use similar indicators or vendor performance frameworks for evaluating performance? If so, please provide information on those frameworks; what has, or has not made them a mutually beneficial process?

Question 5

Are the indicators proposed under quality appropriate as metrics in the industry for measuring the effectiveness in supplying deliverables of the required quality against contractual and organizational objectives?

  1. Does the proposed weighting percentage represent the relative importance of quality with respect to overall vendor performance?
  2. Do the parameters assigned to each rating level (1 to 5) represent appropriate expectations in performance?
  3. Are there other considerations for quality that you would suggest?
  4. Do you have additional comments pertaining to quality?

Question 6

Are the indicators proposed under management appropriate as metrics in the industry for measuring management against contractual and organizational objectives?

  1. Does the proposed weighting percentage represent the relative importance of management with respect to overall vendor performance?
  2. Do the parameters assigned to each rating level (1 to 5) represent appropriate expectations in performance?
  3. Are there other considerations for management that you would suggest?
  4. Do you have additional comments pertaining to management?

Question 7

Are the indicators proposed under cost appropriate as metrics in the industry for measuring aspects of cost against contractual and organizational objectives?

  1. Does the proposed weighting percentage represent the relative importance of cost with respect to overall vendor performance?
  2. Do the parameters assigned to each rating level (1 to 5) represent appropriate expectations in performance?
  3. Are there other considerations for cost that you would suggest?
  4. Do you have any additional comments pertaining to cost?

Question 8

Are the indicator proposed under schedule appropriate as metrics in the industry for measuring the effectiveness in supplying deliverables of the required schedule against contractual and organizational objectives?

  1. Does the proposed weighting percentage represent the relative importance of schedule with respect to overall vendor performance?
  2. Do the parameters assigned to each rating level (1 to 5) represent appropriate expectations in performance?
  3. Are there other considerations for schedule that you would suggest?
  4. Do you have additional comments pertaining to schedule?

Question 9

Are there further suggestions or observations that should be considered regarding the scorecard, indicators, and categories as they relate to the Vendor Performance Management Policy and/or as the pilot moves forward?

Date modified: