Communication Procurement Directorate 2018-19 Client Satisfaction Survey

Background and purpose

The Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) is part of the Commercial and Alternative Acquisitions Management Sector of the Acquisitions Branch of Public Services and Procurement Canada. The Directorate provides all mandatory and optional procurement services related to communications to federal departments and agencies. Its objective is to deliver high-quality, responsive and cost-effective communication procurement services for the commodities under our responsibility.

In 2016, the Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) reviewed its annual client satisfaction survey and revised its approach to more closely align with the departmental Client Service Strategy. Using a phased approach, the CPD decided to first review and increase the number and type of mandatory and optional questions to be asked.

The purpose of this wave of the survey is to assess the satisfaction of other government department project authorities with the Communication Procurement Directorate's procurement services, through three quarters of the 2018-2019 fiscal year. The Q2 survey was conducted in a manner similar to the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 waves. In Q3 and Q4 contact emails were uploaded to a portal by CPD staff on a weekly basis, to test response rates with a survey invitation closer to the actual date of service than has previously been the case. All invitees who had not completed the survey received email reminders on a biweekly basis prior to the end of the quarter.

Methodology

Environics hosted an online survey with clients of CPD. The target audience was defined as all project authorities dealing with CPD in the final three quarters of FY 2018-2019, either for contracts awarded or for advice given but not leading to a contract. As this is an attempted census, no margin of sampling error is calculated.

Q2: Survey invitations were broadcast on October 3 and field was kept open until October 26, 2018. Invitations were broadcast to 311 contacts, of which 74 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 24 percent. Of those participating, seven respondents (nine percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

Q3: Survey invitations were broadcast from October 30 to December 11, 2018. Field was kept open until December 28. Invitations were broadcast to 145 contacts, of which 36 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 25 percent. Of those participating, five respondents (14 percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

Q4: Survey invitations were broadcast from January 8 to March 5, 2019. Field was kept open until March 18. Invitations were broadcast to 140 contacts, of which 41 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 29 percent. Of those participating, one respondent (two percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

All research work was conducted in accordance with federal legislation (Personal Information Protection and-Electronic Documents Act - PIPEDA) and to the Privacy Act and Treasury Board and PSPC privacy policies, directives and standards. The research met all federal government and industry standards.

Using the results

The survey results will be distributed to Directorate management for information and reference and for arranging follow up with specific project authorities, as warranted, in order to identify opportunities for improving service. The results will also be used for discussion with the respective CPD procurement teams, also with a view to improving services and giving credit, as warranted, for work well done.

Cost of research

The cost of this research was $24,984.30 (HST included).

Key findings

As in previous iterations of this research, strong majorities of CPD clients remain satisfied with the service being provided, both overall and with individual aspects. Clients are most likely to strongly agree the personnel were respectful or that they got what they needed in the end, and least likely to strongly agree they were satisfied with the time it took to receive the service, or that the service is an example of good value for money.

Political neutrality statement and contact information

I hereby certify as a Senior Research Associate of Environics Research Group that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.

Calculated overall impression—scale

An overall impression response rate was calculated based on the ratings (scores of 1-5 for satisfaction or agreement) to all rating questions. Responses were added, then averaged. As in previous waves, the majority of clients are positive about CPD's service aspects (results are statistically comparable for these base sizes).

Ranked order of service aspects

Question responses

The following section shows responses by question. Results are statistically comparable to previous years. Note: base sizes for the three quarters and for previous years are small—see page 1.

Comments (Question 13)

Comments provided by respondents are listed in Annex D below, by quarter. A recurring theme is that, while CPD staff are good, turnaround times for services can be too long. There are also a number of complaints about having to pay fees for what are considered internal government services.

Background and purpose

In 2016, the Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) reviewed its client satisfaction survey and revised its approach in order to more closely align with the departmental Client Service Strategy. Using a phased approach, the CPD decided to first review and increase the number and type of mandatory and optional questions to be asked. The results of the 2016/17 survey serve as a baseline from which the CPD measures its subsequent results.

The purpose of the 2018-19 surveys is to assess the satisfaction of other government department project authorities with the Communication Procurement Directorate's procurement services.

Methodology

Environics conducted an ongoing online survey covering clients of CPD in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of FY 2018-19, with a total of 151 completed interviews for the year. Responses were gathered from October 2018 to March 2019. Reminder emails were sent two weeks after each initial invitation.

To institute a system so that clients could receive invitations to the survey as soon as possible after the conclusion of their transaction, Environics created a bilingual online portal onto which CPD staff could upload the email addresses of clients with completed transactions during the previous week (some weeks there were no uploads). The portal was designed to allow only one invitation per email address per quarter, to reduce respondent burden. Each quarter the portal was reset. Any one client might receive up to three invitations, one per quarter they completed a transaction. Note that, as the portal was still under development during Q2, all Q2 client invitations were sent at one time, on October 3, 2018.

Q2: Survey invitations were broadcast on October 3 and field was kept open until October 26, 2018. Invitations were broadcast to 311 contacts, of which 74 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 24 percent. Of those participating, seven respondents (nine percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

Q3: Survey invitations were broadcast from October 30 to December 11, 2018. Field was kept open until December 28. Invitations were broadcast to 145 contacts during the quarter, of which 36 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 25 percent. Of those participating, five respondents (14 percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

Q4: Survey invitations were broadcast from January 8 to March 5, 2019. Field was kept open until March 18. Invitations were broadcast to 140 contacts, of which 41 completed the survey, giving a final response rate of 29 percent. Of those participating, one respondent (two percent) completed the survey based on advice given that did not lead to a contract.

All research work was conducted in accordance with federal legislation (PIPEDA) and to the Privacy Act and Treasury Board and PSPC privacy policies, directives and standards. The research met all federal government and industry standards.

Target audience

The target audience was defined as all project authorities dealing with CPD in the final three quarters of FY 2018-2019, either for contracts awarded or for advice given but not leading to a contract. As this is an attempted census, no margin of sampling error is calculated.

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was designed by CPD using tracking questions from the previous survey and provided to Environics in both official languages. The questionnaire averaged five minutes to deliver. Both the English and French versions of the final study questionnaire are included in an appendix to this document.

Response rate

The table below shows the calculated response rate for each wave of the survey.

Non-response bias analysis

A non-response bias analysis is not available for this study. This was not a general population survey, there are no statistics on this population available, and no demographic questions were asked.

Introduction screen

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) annual client satisfaction survey.

The survey focuses on services received during fiscal year 2018-2019; please provide your feedback based on your most recent experience with CPD. The results of the survey will be used to improve service delivery.

The survey is being conducted by Environics Research Group on behalf of CPD. The survey should take you less than 5 minutes to complete.

If you have any questions or require more information on the survey, please contact Gillian Stewart by telephone at 613-990-3576 or by using the following e-mail address: gillian.stewart@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca.

Survey questions

1. Was the most recent service that you received:
   • Advice (that did not lead to a contract, call-up or amendment); or
   • A contract, call-up or amendment?
2. Overall how satisfied were you with the quality of service you received?
   • (1) Very dissatisfied
   • (2) Dissatisfied
   • (3) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
   • (4) Satisfied
   • (5) Very satisfied
   • N/A
   • Don't know
3. I was satisfied with the amount of time it took to receive the service.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
4. I was satisfied with the amount of time it took to receive a response to my questions/comments.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
5. Communications with the Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) were effective.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
6. I obtained clear information.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
7. I was satisfied with the ease of access to the service.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
8. Personnel were knowledgeable.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
9. Personnel were respectful.
   • Strongly disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither agree nor disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly agree
   • N/A
   • Don't know
10. Personnel understood my needs.
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • N/A
    • Don't know
11. In the end, I got what I needed.
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • N/A
    • Don't know
12. I consider the service received to be an example of good value for money.
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • N/A
    • Don't know
13. I consider the Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) to be a valuable partner in government operations.
    • Strongly disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly agree
    • N/A
    • Don't know

Comments (optional):

Communication Services Procurement

The Communication Procurement Directorate (CPD) of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) invites you to participate in a survey to help them improve the services provided to you during fiscal year 2018-2019. As a common service organization, CPD provides mandatory and optional procurement services related to communications to federal departments and agencies.

For 2018-2019, CPD has redesigned its approach to solicit just-in-time feedback from a broader client base and for a greater period of time. The survey is designed to solicit your feedback a maximum of three times, generally once per quarter, regardless of the number of services you receive over the fiscal year. You are receiving this invitation today because CPD has recently provided procurement services to your organization.

The survey is being conducted by Environics Research Group on behalf of CPD. The survey should take you less than 5 minutes to complete and should be completed online no later than [end of each quarter]. Participation is voluntary and your responses will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.

To continue to the survey, please follow this link:

<< Link to English survey >>

(the link to the survey in French is below)

If you have any questions or require more information on the survey, please contact Gillian Stewart by telephone at 613-990-3576 or by using the following e-mail address: gillian.stewart@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca.

Thank you for your interest in helping CPD continue to improve their services and performance.

Q2

Attention to detail and clear communications is essential to a smooth working relationship. Unfortunately, clarity and communications were often missing and extra work (duplication of work) was often required by myself or my team.

Comment about this online survey: the scales are not respecting your own best practices! Also, it would be nice to be able to toggle between English and French, as some of us are Francophones but mostly work in English and are not always aware of the French terms for some things.

Had great, quick service from CPD. Only comment, I find the new process with PORD for commenting on Statement of works (SOW) and Proposals not well coordinated (communicated). I was surprised to receive a separate e-mail of comments direct from CPD after I had already received comments from PORD. Previously, I think this was better coordinated/communicated.

I am not sure what the purpose of being required to use this service was. The majority of the work was already completed before sending to PWGSC as required. CPD simply gave advice and then executed the solicitation of the bid. But CPD still claims 3% of the total contract value- why?? Does not seem like good value for our money. It was an extra charge for my client that is hard to explain and justify. What did CPD actually do to earn that fee?

I don't know if we were dealing with the CPD but we were trying to procure items and it was a long process and frustrating too. We lost a lot of time and had to be after our service agent all the time.

I strongly disagree that PSPC charges an admin fee from one government department to another I feel that is ridiculous.....and on top of that the length of time that it takes for us to get the contracts back is outrageous I have submitted a 9200 in April and to date Oct 4 I still have not received it....the end of Sept it still was not sent out for posting.

I've always had a good experience when requesting procurement advice and guidance. I have not had any issues with the timing of the advice.

I only did the requisition request. This survey should have been sent to the program officer because this is the person who is in contact with your department, not me. I am only the intermediary (Hubss) between the program officer and our contract department.

The process is so long that it jeopardizes the completion of the projects. I wrote my statement of work in February, and the contract was in place in July. It's ridiculous.

My answers on the survey are about the service received from Material Management.

One issue I run into with CPD is that sometimes costing issues are caught AFTER our internal finance team have put through the 9200. I am not sure why this happens, is it because CPD is only looking at the proposal when it gets to them for a contract to be issued? When it is my understanding they should be reviewing closely when the proposal is first sent to them in the planning stage. These type of things should be picked up when CPD reviews the costing proposal. Other than that CPD has been excellent

Overall service was very positive. When we work with a supplier, we have to update a SOW AND an proposal, but the proposal is the supplier's response to an SOW. I find the updated SOW an extra step. Would appreciate consolidated feedback from PORD and CPD at the same time. Version control is important. When we send the 9200 to procurement, all the coding info is included. But then we get an email from PSPC asking for coding info and then are sent an invoice that we don't have to pay for the procurement.

Services I received was excellent.

Very happy with our representative. He is great to deal with.

Q3

I have only used CPD for simple advertising and other communications call ups that are relatively straightforward, hence I have not strong opinions and cannot rate a number of areas because they were not relevant.

The staff is excellent, but the process is much too onerous and long.

I think CPD has really improved over the years - service is timely and staff are friendly, knowledgeable and helpful. My only complaint is regarding contract amendments - these seem to take quite some time to make what can be a very small change to a contract.

Turnaround times and getting responses are slow but staff is for the most friendly.

It is incredibly difficult to find a contact name on any PSPC website to contact the CPD department. A colleague provided a name and I was directed to three different people before someone knew someone in the CPD department. Also, links to your generic email address is probably going nowhere since I never received an answer.

The staff had no knowledge of (subjects). This led to a disastrous contract, which we are now trying to address on the fly with a supplier that has already breached the contract on several matters, less than two weeks after commencement. Now we have to work twice as hard to get our products together using an extra supplier that cannot provide what was in the SOW.

Request processing was very long. The person responsible for the file changed halfway through the mandate without us being informed, and we had to start the entire process over again. It was very time consuming and tedious. The instructions were not very clear. The process is onerous. The process took longer than the management of the contract with the supplier. The process does not seem to be in line with new technologies. The staff was kind and well intentioned, but the processing time for my request was extremely long.

Q4

Always a pleasure working with the folks at CPD.

At one point in time, there has been instruction saying they wouldn't charge the 3% fees anymore but on most of our file, we receive an email asking us for the financial coding and commitment. Unfortunately, we set them up and don't know if the fees will be charged or not. We don't know if we have to assume that if we received the message, we will be charge or if they made a mistake.

Contracting moved quickly through procurement. We would appreciate it if all folks involved in the process received copies of contracts and amendments in one email (supplier, departmental contact in procurement, technical authority, and project authority). Procurement fees seemed to be a bit confusing. We need to commit money for the funds, provide coding, but the funds aren't actually being pulled out of those codes. We end up closing those accounts and then the client has extra money to spend that they haven't budgeted for. Maybe some guidance/info session on how to set up our 9200 or what's required before we get to contracting would help. There was a pilot done this year that we didn't know about (only procurement fees for $750 or above being issued). This information could have been included in the email we receive, along with the invoice, that we don't actually pay. Suggest to include the table for coding information in the body of the email with the contract or amendment. Additional attachments often get lost or new folks may not open them since the doc was called procurement fees, but there was no indication that we needed to provide coding information in the email or in the name of the document.

In terms of value for money, the fee is based on percentage of the contract. That's fine, but seems odd when I imagine the same amount of work goes into a low dollar value contract as a high dollar value contract. I'm fine with whatever is easiest to minimize administrative burden (that's my priority) so if this is the best approach, then that's great. Just seems odd to pay a small amount for low dollar value contracts. In terms of timeliness, this is often a sticking point for me. I know the team is busy, but I often need a two-day turnaround on my items (whether it's a question or issuing a contract). Even setting my expectations as to when I will receive the service is better than not responding for a week.

It is always a pleasure to deal with CPD staff and I look forward to doing so in the future. Thank you for your support and dedication

The time it takes to process the file, the ease with which the files are handled are very dependent on the procurement officer assigned. Sometimes, the information provided by one officer contradicts what was provided by another officer, which makes it a little confusing. I must say that 99% of the time it's a pleasure to work with CPD.

It is easier for budgeting if the CPD would recover all funds (no matter how small).

(Name) - always a pleasure to speak with and if I don't have the answer (name) does!

Thank you (name) and (name)!

Understanding the contract process, should be encouraged by all Government Departments. PW has offered some wonderful one-on-one or team debriefs, that can help teams and their finance staff know the nuances - that may differ from department. PW could offer more of these to those that may need more clarification.

Thanks!!