Prepared for:
Public Services and Procurement Canada
tpsgc.porcoordcomm-ropcoordcomm.pwgsc@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
Executive Summary
Prepared by:
EKOS Research Associates, Inc.
359 Kent Street, Suite 300
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R6
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
I hereby certify as Senior Officer of EKOS Research Associates, Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications.
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed:
Will Daley
Vice President
EKOS Research Associates, Inc.
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) operates the Contract Security Program (CSP), which provides contract security screening of organizations and their personnel doing business with the Government of Canada.
As part of its effort to improve its practices, the CSP commissioned EKOS Research Associates to conduct research amongst a target audience of organizations currently registered with the Program.
The survey was designed to establish baseline information from organizations registered with the CSP in a variety of areas:
The ultimate objectives served by the major lines of inquiry identified above are to establish and track key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess over time whether CSP program outcomes are improving in the following ways:
By establishing these KPIs, the CSP will be able to determine through future survey research the extent to which changes to the services it offers result in improvements to the cost and service that its client organizations experience.
EKOS Research conducted 451 interviews online (an average time of 15 minutes was required to complete the survey) between January 10 and February 1, 2018, amongst a sample of organizations registered with the CSP. This sample was identified from a sample frame of 2,319 which was randomly selected from a universe of 22,716 organizations registered with the CSP.
A sample of n=451 obtains a margin of error of +/-4.6 percentage points (calculated at a 95% confidence interval). The margin of error means that the results of the research are, theoretically, within 4.6 percentage points (higher or lower) of the results if the entire population had been surveyed. A larger sample size would result in a lower margin of error.
Tables included in the Detailed Methodology (within the Appendices) outline the size and regional distribution of the universe, sample frame and sample, both weighted and unweighted.
The final value of this contract, including the harmonized sales tax, is $14,571.35.
A majority of CSP clients say they access the Online Industrial Security Services (OLISS) Portal at least once per month (59%), including three in ten (29%) who use the OLISS Portal at least once per week. Two in three respondents (68%) say they are familiar with OLISS (including 34% who are ‘very’ familiar).
Just over half of respondents (54%) agree that the information provided was organized in a clear manner, while a similar proportion (53%) offered a positive appraisal of the clarity of the information itself. Half (49%) award the portal positive marks in terms of ease of finding the needed information. Relatively few respondents (14% to 16%) indicated that they were dissatisfied with the OLISS Portal.
Two in three respondents (69%) say that tools were made available to them by the CSP when they submitted a new security application. Among those who were given access to these tools, most recall being granted access to instructions (70%) and online resources (64%). About half recall being offered guides (54%), the Industrial Security Manual (52%), or checklists (51%). Among those who had access to these resources, six in ten (63%) would rate them as helpful. Nearly one in three (30%) rated the tools as neutral, (6%) not very helpful, and (1%) not at all helpful.
Four in ten respondents have either been involved in an inspection of their facility by a CSP officer (41%), have participated in an in-person training session (45%), or have taken part in a webinar (39%).
The findings show that experience with an inspection and taking part in training (either in person or online) help clarify the safeguarding requirements. Among those who have been involved in an inspection by a CSP officer, nine in ten (89%) found that the experience made the requirements more clear. Similarly, eight in ten in-person training session attendees (81%) agreed that the experience clarified the requirements. Among those who participated in a webinar training seminar, three-quarters (73%) found the session helpful.
Two in three respondents (65%) who received an invitation to a webinar training session, but could not attend say they were interested, while one in four (25%) were not. Three in five respondents invited to an in-person training session (58%) say they were interested in attending, compared to one in three (36%) who were not.
The CSP generally scores well in terms of level of service, although responses suggest room for improvement when it comes to timeliness and ease of access. The vast majority of respondents (87%) are satisfied with the respectfulness of CSP staff. Similarly, about seven in ten are satisfied with the CSP staff’s knowledge (72%), ease of obtaining service (68%), and how well CSP staff understood their needs (66%). Six in ten are pleased with the clarity of the information they received (61%) and the effectiveness of CSP communications (59%).
The CSP received somewhat more mixed reviews when it comes to ease of access and timeliness. While half of respondents (49%) say they are satisfied with their ability to access CSP services, one in five (22%) indicate that they are dissatisfied. Similar proportions indicated satisfaction with the time it took to get a response (48%) and the time it took to receive service (46%), although roughly three in ten provided negative assessments (27% and 29%, respectively).
Nearly one in three respondents (28%) said their organization files five or fewer CSP applications (reliability or classified) in a typical year. One in five (21%) said they file between five and 10 CSP applications per year, while a similar proportion (19%) files between 10 and 20 per year. One-third (32%) usually files 20 or more.
One in four respondents (24%) indicated that they typically file five or fewer security applications (for either the CSP or another government department) during a typical yearFootnote 1. One in five (19%) said they usually file between five and 10 applications, while one in four (23%) file between 10 and 20. One-third (34%) said they generally file 20 or more.
About eight in ten respondents (83%) indicated that they file at least one reliability status application per year and those who did reported a median of 10 such applications. Half (51%) usually file at least one classified application with a median of five applications per year. One-quarter (28%) generally apply for at least one security screening application for a government department outside the CSP; the median number of reported applications is five.
Clients report spending an average of 1.4 hours completing a reliability status application. Classified applications, meanwhile, take about twice as long to complete (with a reported average completion time of 2.7 hours).
Respondents express fairly limited knowledge of the processes involved in sponsoring companies as subcontractors to work on government contracts that include security requirements. Just three in ten (28%) would consider themselves knowledgeable of the processes involved, while four in ten (40%) say they are not very or not at all knowledgeable.
The data for all government applications includes both reliability and classified applications.