Federal auditors have revealed significant irregularities in the Department of Agriculture's consultant hiring practices, raising concerns over the department's management and oversight. Blacklock's Reporter says this revelation comes amid questions about why federal managers are increasingly relying on expensive consultants despite a growing number of employees.“Improvements are required,” stated an internal Audit Of Professional Services at the Department of Agriculture. The audit highlighted that a Procurement Review Board, created to oversee contracting, was staffed with appointees lacking expertise in procurement and contracting.Appointees were “not procurement subject matter experts” and had “limited knowledge” of contracting, the report noted. “This in turn may diminish the overall effectiveness of the Board.”Auditors also criticized managers for withholding crucial information from the Board, hindering its ability to properly scrutinize contracts. “No performance reporting on procurement activities was compiled or shared with the Board,” the auditors wrote.“Records of decisions contained only partial information including whether submissions were approved, denied, or put on hold,” the report added. “Details such as discussion points, evidence of a challenge function, or the results of voting quorums were not documented. Having incomplete details documented in Board records of decisions does not provide a complete audit trail should questions about decisions occur.”Over the past five years, the Department of Agriculture has spent $231 million on consultants, issuing 1,109 contracts, including many sole-sourced awards without competitive bidding.Government-wide spending on consultants has surged 195% since 2016, according to a 2023 Budget Office report. Analysts noted, “It has shown consistent growth year over year.”Bloc Québécois MP Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, Que.) questioned the logic behind hiring more consultants alongside more federal employees. She expressed her confusion to the Commons government operations committee: “We have more public servants, so why use more consultants? They tell us, well, we have fewer resources. I don’t understand this. If we have more public servants we have more resources. Why are we doing more outsourcing?”The federal payroll, comprising 428,000 employees, costs $67 billion annually in salaries and benefits. In addition, spending on consultants totals another $21.6 billion a year, involving tens of thousands of contracts.Liberal MP Parm Bains (Steveston-Richmond East, Ont.) highlighted the close-knit nature of the federal consulting industry at the government operations committee meeting. “We find contractors, subcontractors, many know one another,” said Bains. “They work on several duties and relationships over time are built, these sort of things.”The audit calls for significant changes to ensure better management and transparency in the hiring and oversight of consultants, aiming to curb the escalating costs and improve accountability within federal departments.
Federal auditors have revealed significant irregularities in the Department of Agriculture's consultant hiring practices, raising concerns over the department's management and oversight. Blacklock's Reporter says this revelation comes amid questions about why federal managers are increasingly relying on expensive consultants despite a growing number of employees.“Improvements are required,” stated an internal Audit Of Professional Services at the Department of Agriculture. The audit highlighted that a Procurement Review Board, created to oversee contracting, was staffed with appointees lacking expertise in procurement and contracting.Appointees were “not procurement subject matter experts” and had “limited knowledge” of contracting, the report noted. “This in turn may diminish the overall effectiveness of the Board.”Auditors also criticized managers for withholding crucial information from the Board, hindering its ability to properly scrutinize contracts. “No performance reporting on procurement activities was compiled or shared with the Board,” the auditors wrote.“Records of decisions contained only partial information including whether submissions were approved, denied, or put on hold,” the report added. “Details such as discussion points, evidence of a challenge function, or the results of voting quorums were not documented. Having incomplete details documented in Board records of decisions does not provide a complete audit trail should questions about decisions occur.”Over the past five years, the Department of Agriculture has spent $231 million on consultants, issuing 1,109 contracts, including many sole-sourced awards without competitive bidding.Government-wide spending on consultants has surged 195% since 2016, according to a 2023 Budget Office report. Analysts noted, “It has shown consistent growth year over year.”Bloc Québécois MP Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, Que.) questioned the logic behind hiring more consultants alongside more federal employees. She expressed her confusion to the Commons government operations committee: “We have more public servants, so why use more consultants? They tell us, well, we have fewer resources. I don’t understand this. If we have more public servants we have more resources. Why are we doing more outsourcing?”The federal payroll, comprising 428,000 employees, costs $67 billion annually in salaries and benefits. In addition, spending on consultants totals another $21.6 billion a year, involving tens of thousands of contracts.Liberal MP Parm Bains (Steveston-Richmond East, Ont.) highlighted the close-knit nature of the federal consulting industry at the government operations committee meeting. “We find contractors, subcontractors, many know one another,” said Bains. “They work on several duties and relationships over time are built, these sort of things.”The audit calls for significant changes to ensure better management and transparency in the hiring and oversight of consultants, aiming to curb the escalating costs and improve accountability within federal departments.
