[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what do these consultants do that is a waste of time? Are you going to increase the size of the public service to compensate? It would be tough to say we go no value for the 10 billion so what services of the government get cut with that statement?

And are you spending that money elsewhere in terms of tax cuts or are we cutting spending during a recession to reduce the deficit which we know makes recessions worse?

I agree in general with the concept of reducing contracted labour and instead bringing that expertise in house where it is required but you can’t just say 10 billion in savings without saying what you cut.

The value proposition isn't zero but it might be pretty low.

Overall, across the 97 contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company, we found frequent disregard for procurement policies and guidance and that contracting practices often did not demonstrate value for money. The extent of non‑compliance varied across organizations. However, 9 out of 10 departments and agencies and 8 out of 10 Crown corporations failed to properly follow all aspects of their procurement policies and guidance on at least 1 contract.

In 10 of the 28 contracts that were awarded through a competitive process, we found that bid evaluations did not include enough information to support the selection of McKinsey & Company as the winning bidder. In addition, in 18 of the 19 contracts issued under the national master standing offer with McKinsey & Company, organizations did not provide the required justification for using a non‑competitive process. We also found 4 series of contracts where, after awarding an initial contract to McKinsey & Company with no competition, organizations subsequently awarded additional non‑competitive contracts for related work. For 4 other series, only the initial contract was awarded competitively. In total, these 8 series represent 30 contracts with a total value of approximately $58 million.

In 19 of the 33 contracts included in our representative sample, we found one or more issues that prevented organizations from demonstrating that the contracts had delivered value for the money. The risks to value for money varied across federal organizations, and issues included a failure to show why a contract was necessary, no clear statement of what the contract would deliver, or no confirmation that the government received all expected deliverables...

We found that organizations did not receive all deliverables listed in the contracts for 6 (18%) out of 33 contracts. For 5 other contracts, we found that the statement of work was not specific enough for us to assess whether what was delivered was consistent with the contract requirements.

https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/E...5_e_44492.html