ARCHIVED - Management Practices Review of the Resolution and Individual Affairs Sector (RIAS)

Archived information

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping 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.

Date: October 2009

PDF Version (962 kb, 30 Pages)

 

 

Table of Contents


Review Objectives

The Management Practices Review (MPR) was designed to:

Methodology

Context

Scope

Human Resources – Background*

* The HR statistics presented in this report are based on the HR Dashboard - Resolution and Individual Affairs Sector for April 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008

Observations - Strengths

Observations - Areas for Improvement

Observations - Areas for Improvement (HR)

A significant number of HR files sampled could not be located. As a result, feedback on the quality of the staffing actions is limited. With missing HR files, the Department cannot support staffing decisions. The details of the findings are outlined below:

  1. HR files selected for staffing actions testing could not be located. From the original selection of 20 files, 15 (75%) could not be located:

    • four indeterminates;

    • five terms;

    • two actings; and

    • four casuals.

    From an additional selection of 11 HR files, nine (82%) could not be located:

    • two actings;

    • four terms; and

    • three casuals.

  2. Based on the seven staffing action files obtained, the following transactions did not comply fully with applicable authorities:

    • In three staffing actions, the request for personnel services was not included in the respective HR files.

    • In one staffing action, a justification was not on file; although it was a non-advertised position.

    • For two staffing actions, the acting appointment was for more than a year; although no HR plan was included in the HR file.

    • In one staffing action, the initial Letter of Offer was not on file.

    • In three staffing actions, the Letter of Offer was dated after the employee start date.

    • In one staffing action, the HR checklist was not included in the file.

    • In one staffing action, the request for personnel services was signed by a director but not dated.

    • In one staffing action, the Letter of Offer for first extension was signed but not dated.

  3. There was no evidence of pre-approval of the five overtime transactions tested.

  4. Of the five samples selected for classification actions, one classification action was authorized by the delegated authority (signature) but not dated.

  5. Of the five learning plans tested, the following exceptions were identified:

    • One employee had an approved learning plan but no evidence of courses taken could be provided.

    • One employee had an approved learning plan but had not attended any courses listed; evidence was identified that the individual had attended one alternative course.

    • Two employees who started in October and December 2008, respectively, did not have a learning plan completed within three months of their start date, as required.

Grants & Contributions – Background

Observations – Areas for Improvement (G&C's)

Observations – Areas for Improvement (Contracting)

A significant number of instances of non-compliance with procurement policies were highlighted as a result of our review, including missing documentation and possible contract splitting. The detailed results are as follows:

  1. Of five of the sole source contracts tested:

    • For three contracts, no requisition form was on file documenting Responsibility Centre Manager (RCM) approval (Section 32) to commit the funds.

    • For two contracts, the contracts signed were those of the vendors and the files did not include a SOW.

    • For three contracts, the individuals who signed the contract did not have contracting authority.

    • For one contract, the invoice was not in accordance with the terms of the contract.

    • For one contract, the Section 34 approval was on the fax cover letter and not on the original invoice.

  2. Of the 10 contracts awarded competitively that were tested (over $25,000), many did not fully comply with contracting policies:

    • For eight contracts, there was no requisition on file.

    • For three contracts, there was no evidence of posting on MERX (for one sample, this was as a result of a missing RFP file and for the other samples the evidence of MERX posting was not on file).

    • For five contracts, there was no justification demonstrating that the services are required and linked to program objectives, due to the missing SOW.

    • For two contracts, there was no evidence of tenders (envelopes) date & time stamped upon receipt & open only after bid closing deadline (for one sample due to missing RFP file).

    • For two contracts, no evidence of technical evaluation of the proposal was included in the file.

    • For three contracts, there was no SOW included with contract.

    • For one contract, the individual who signed the contract (RCM) did not have contracting authority.

    • For one contract, the contractor's signature does not appear on the contract in the file.

    • For two contracts, the start date was in advance of the date that the contracting authority signed the contract.

    • For two contracts, the Section 32 approval was signed subsequent to the signing of the call-up.

    • For one contract, the corresponding invoices could not be located.

    • For one contract, the corresponding invoices were signed by an RCM; however, no evidence was available to support his delegation of authority for that time period.

    • For one contract, the amendment form was not signed by the contracting authority.

    • For one contract, an amendment was made to adjust a per diem rate, however this is not an appropriate justification for an amendment according to contracting rules.

Observations – Areas for Improvement (Acquisition Cards)

Recommendations

Overall, we recommend the following:

We recommend the following in the area of strategic and operation planning:

We recommend the following in the area of delegation of financial authority:

We recommend the following in the area of financial management:

We recommend the following in the area of accountability and authority:

We recommend the following in the area of coordination of programs/activities:

We recommend the following in the area of HR:

We recommend the following in the area of contracting:

Return to Table of Contents
 
 
Date modified: