5.0 Strategic and Performance Indicators

DCC measures its performance by using metrics meaningful to customers, business partners and employees. The measures below also allow DCC to monitor its ability to provide value to stakeholders.

5.1 Timeliness of Procurement

Construction Procurement

	Target (in days)	Median Number of Days to Award 1		Number of Contracts
Indicator		2007–2008	2006–2007	2007–2008	2006–2007
Regular tender call	35	36	36	250	172
Tender boards	25	28	25	411	406
Quick response tenders	14	14	13	200	220
Design-build tenders	120	NA 2	NA 2	4	1

1. The median number of days from receipt of Notice of Proposed Procurement. Based on historical trends and the multitude of project specific variables, it is reasonable to expect DCC to achieve the targets 50% of the time.

2. The results for the design-build contracts are not reported due to the small number of contracts. The reduced number of design-build contracts is not indicative of a new trend in the use of design-build as a project deliverymethod; it is simply a cyclical phenomenon and is dependent upon the requirements of the client.

Consultant Procurement

	Target (in days)	Median Number of Days to Award 1		Number of Contracts
Indicator		2007–2008	2006–2007	2007–2008	2006–2007
SELECT	25	29	25	236	251
One-step proposal	60	26	63	231	77
Two-step proposal	120	65	153	89	8

DCC’s client wants to begin work on their projects as soon as possible after receiving approval, making timeliness of procurement a key performance indicator. DCC intentionally sets aggressive targets for the timeliness of construction and consultant procurement. The targets represent a reasonable length of time from receipt of the Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP) to the awarding of the contract to the contractor or consultant. Factors that affect performance against the targets include the availability of funding, bid anomalies, and changes to the scope and value of the work during the procurement process. Additional time that might be required as a result of these is not included in the targets and often accounts for exceeding the performance targets. To date, DCC is meeting the industry expectations for a reasonable turnaround time to award a contract after a tender has closed.

DCC recognizes the time and effort that the industry expends to prepare and submit tenders. Consequently, to reduce the risk of a failed tender, DCC screens all projects for bidability. At year-end, 95.1% of DCC tender calls resulted in the award of a contract. This compares to 94.7% in 2006–07, 93.6% in 2005–6 and 99.5% in 2004–5. The most frequent reason for tenders to not result in contract is that the contract price exceeds the approved budget amount.

5.2 Client Satisfaction

Performance measure	2007–2008	2006–2007	% change
Client satisfaction	97%	98%	-1%
Successful contracting ratio	95.1%	94.7%	1%
Value of contract claims at fiscal year end	$ 14,791,595	$ 14,628,938	2%

Completing each project or task to the satisfaction of the client is critical to the success of DCC operations. To this end, the Corporation tracks client satisfaction as one of its key performance indicators. DCC administers surveys by interviewing clients individually in person once a year. Each client has the opportunity to comment on the service DCC provided on all projects in which the client was involved.

In 2007–08, DCC conducted surveys with 278 client representatives involved in 769 projects, compared to 356 surveys in 2006–07, 503 surveys in 2005–06 and 660 surveys in 2004–05. Scores are weighted according to the value of each service agreement. For example, a score based on a contract valued at $1 million is weighted more heavily than a score based on a contract valued at $10,000. Client satisfaction scores are based on a scale of one to five. A score of three meets expectations, and a score of four or five surpasses expectations. During 2007–08, 97% of clients indicated DCC met or exceeded client expectations with 65.1% rating DCC’s service four or more and 32.4% offering scores of between three and four.

DCC considers all feedback received during this process and swift action is taken where required, especially on those surveys that receive a score of less than three. Each year, DCC receives a range of feedback. Typically, issues relate to specific incidents that fall into one of several categories such as communications, administrative procedural problems or staffing concerns. In 2007–08, the complaints did not indicate any wide-ranging pattern of concern.

Timeliness of construction contract completion

Schedule control is a key component of client satisfaction. DCC monitors timeliness of construction contract completions and works with clients to minimize schedule slippage. When slippage does occur, DCC ensures that DND knows the reasons. In 2007–08, 68% of completed construction contracts were finished by the established completion date. Another 18% were completed within one to 30 days and 14% were completed in over 30 days.

 

 

Change order values

The change order values in 2007–08 reverted to the trend established in 2005–06. The change in total award value for the year was 8.3%, with 6.2% arising from design changes and 2.1% arising from site conditions. The increase in change order values in 2006–07 was due to a major change in design on one project. Similarly, the significantly higher rate of cost growth in 2004–05 was the result of a single contract. Although formal targets are not set for this indicator, DCC tracks this information in order to inform the client and to help the facility users manage any schedule risks associated with the construction.

 

 

 

 

Legal claims

DCC manages legal claims on behalf of the Department of National Defence. The dollar value of contract claims before the courts is a direct indication of DCC’s efforts to protect the interests of the Crown. A balance must be struck between treating contractors fairly and ensuring the government receives fair value for contracted commitments. In 2007–08 DCC settled five claims for a total value of $373,806. As at March 31, there were 14 claims outstanding with a total value of $14,791,595 compared to $14,628,938 outstanding at the end of 2006–07. There is one on-going claim, valued at $9.1 million that is creating a significant increase in the outstanding claims for the past two years. Excluding this case, the outstanding claims at the end of 2007–08 were $5.7 million, and $5.5 million at the end of 2006–07. These amounts are consistent with the trend of the past five years. The settlements resulting from the resolution of legal claims are funded by the DND and do not have any financial impact on the Corporation.