Audit of Project Management of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station

5.1.1 Formal CHARS Infrastructure Governance

There are formally established oversight bodies for the CHARS infrastructure project, including the Senior Project Advisory Committee, the CHARS Oversight Committee, and the 'CHARS Senior Management Committee'. There is also a project-level governance body, referred to as the 'CHARS Project Management Committee', that includes key project management resources from AANDC, PWGSC and third-party contractors.

Although the 'CHARS Senior Management' and 'CHARS Project Management Committees' are established and functioning as oversight bodies, they are not formally named committees within the current CHARS governance structure. These names have been created for audit documentation purposes to describe their respective roles and responsibilities. The audit team developed a diagram of the governance structure based on project documentation and interviews with key resources. This diagram, which was validated with AANDC key oversight stakeholders, is depicted below in Figure 2.

Text alternative for Figure 2 CHARS Governance Structure

Figure 2 illustrates the CHARS governance structure and the relationship between CHARS project management committees and the respective CHARS project teams at AANDC and PWGSC.

At the top of the diagram is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) who has ultimate authority over the CHARS project. Supporting the Minister of AANDC is the Deputy Minister of AANDC. The Deputy Minister is supported by the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Northern Affairs Organization (NAO) – the Program Sector within AANDC charged with the management of the project – and the Deputy Minister Committee on Arctic Science and Technology (S&T). The ADM of NAO is supported by the CHARS Facility Core Governance Structure, which is depicted in the center of the figure, as well as the ADM Committee on Arctic S&T, which is the Senior Project Advisory Committee for CHARS.

The center of the diagram illustrates the Core Governance Structure for the CHARS Facility project. The most senior committee within the CHARS Facility Core Governance Structure is the CHARS Oversight Committee. The CHARS Oversight Committee meets on an as-needed basis and is the mechanism for ADM-level oversight of the project by both AANDC and PWGSC. Within the core governance structure, the CHARS Oversight Committee is supported by bi-lateral discussions between AANDC and PWGSC Directors General (DG) that occur on an as-needed basis to provide informal oversight. These DG bi-lateral discussions are supported by the CHARS Senior Management Committee, which meets on a monthly basis, and is designed to provide oversight of the facility project at the Director and team-level by representatives from PWGSC and AANDC.

The left of the diagram illustrates the PWGSC Regional Governance Structure. The PWGSC Regional Governance Structure starts with the PWGSC Project / Acquisition Teams, reporting directly to PWGC Project / Acquisitions Managers, who in turn report to PWGSC Project / Acquisitions Directors. The PWGSC Project / Acquisitions Directors report to the PWGSC Regional Director General (RDG). These directors also support one of the governance mechanisms depicted in the CHARS Facility Core Governance Structure: the CHARS Senior Management Committee. The PWGSC RDG supports two of the governance mechanisms depicted in the CHARS Facility Core Governance Structure: The CHARS Oversight Committee and DG bi-lateral discussions.

The right of the diagram starts with the AANDC Project Team, reporting directly to the AANDC Project Manager, up to the AANDC Project Leader. The AANDC Project Leader has a direct relationship to the AANDC Director General (DG) and supports the CHARS Senior Management Committee and provides the secretariat function for the ADM Committee on Arctic S&T. The AANDC DG RDG supports one of the governance mechanisms depicted in the CHARS Facility Core Governance Structure: the DG bi-lateral discussions.

The bottom center of the diagram illustrates the horizontal relationship between the CHARS Project Management Committee, which meets on a monthly basis and is comprised of the AANDC/PWGSC Project Manager, Design Consortium, and Construction Manager, and both the AANDC Project Manager to the right and the PWGSC Project / Acquisitions Managers to the left. In addition, the bottom centre of the diagram illustrates the horizontal relationship between the AANDC Project Leader, to the right, and the PWGSC Project / Acquisitions Directors, to the left, which occurs on a monthly basis through Director bi-lateral discussions, providing informal oversight to the project.

5.1.2 Governance Framework

The CHARS infrastructure project is a joint delivery effort between AANDC and PWGSC. With PWGSC assuming the role of the delivery agent for the infrastructure project, their National Project Management System (NPMS) and its associated processes, deliverables and approvals are being used to manage the project. Subsequently, the governance of the CHARS infrastructure project is defined, at a high-level within the NPMS-required Project Management Plan and the Project Charter (in addition to the individual Terms of Reference developed for oversight bodies). This includes high-level definitions for departmental roles, responsibilities, and issues management.

While the roles and responsibilities of the project resources are well understood at an operational level, an overall governance framework that describes the structure and the integration between the project team and various oversight bodies, including escalation procedures and reporting relationships between departmental team members, is not currently documented for the project as a whole. Governance protocols for how the project will continue to receive governance and oversight throughout the infrastructure project lifecycle up to and including project close out, are also not formally documented. Despite the lack of formal documentation of the governance structure, project management and team resources feel that the evolved governance structure in its current state is functioning appropriately. This finding is supported by interviews with project resources and a review of project documentation.

5.1.3 Informal Oversight

While there is DG and Director-level involvement in the formal oversight committees as described above, additional oversight at the DG and Director levels takes place on an informal basis via bi-lateral discussions between AANDC and PWGSC counterparts. These discussions are not governed by a Terms of Reference and key discussions are not formally documented.

Interviews with AANDC and PWGSC project management resources supported that the DG bi-lateral discussions occur on an as-needed basis; Director-level bi-lateral discussions occur on a monthly basis, with more frequent discussions occurring around key project milestones.

5.2.1 Project Management Framework

In accordance with the TB Policy on the Management of Projects and the PWGSC National Project Management System (NPMS) Policy, PWGSC's NPMS framework and associated processes and approvals are used to manage the CHARS infrastructure project. This includes the usage of NPMS-prescribed tools, templates, deliverables and approval milestones, which are aligned with the TB project approval process. The NPMS framework and processes are rigorously followed in the management of the CHARS project. The project is currently at the end of the Design Phase and will progress to the Implementation Phase once Effective Project Approval is received.

In accordance with the NPMS framework, guidance, governance, accountability, and reporting protocols between AANDC and PWGSC have been established in key project governing documents, such as the Project Management Plan and the Project Charter. High-level departmental and key resource roles and responsibilities for governance, project management, risk management, financial management, and procurement and contract management are defined within these documents. Resource specific roles are also defined for the AANDC and PWGSC Project Managers and the AANDC Project Leader.

The active reporting requirements of both financial and non-financial information for PWGSC, as the day-to-day project manager of the infrastructure component, are outlined within these governing documents. Reporting requirements are accomplished by PWGSC's Project Manager through the Project Black Book, a tool specific to PWGSC's Western Region Real Property unit. The Project Black Book is an Excel-based workbook that tracks detailed financial and non-financial metrics of the project in the areas of project management, issues management, financial management, and contract management, and monitors project progress against the key performance indicators of project scope, budget, and schedule. Initially, project reporting by PWGSC to AANDC was limited in the provision of a summary of expenditures to date as well as invoices for cost recovery for PWGSC resources. At AANDC's request, the Project Black Book is now shared with the AANDC designated Project Manager on a monthly basis, which has facilitated a more effective departmental working relationship through the increase of knowledge and information-sharing.

AANDC's CHARS project reporting requirements are defined and aligned to established departmental reporting practices. The Northern Affairs Organization (NAO) provides progress reports on the CHARS infrastructure project through the Department's internal quarterly reports, which are submitted to the Deputy Minister, and annually within the publicly-available Departmental Performance Report. These reporting requirements were met on a consistent basis by AANDC, and the level of detail on project progress was appropriate for the audience of the report, with quarterly reports providing operational progress updates and the Departmental Performance Report, including project information at a strategic level.

5.2.2 Human Resources

There are approximately 10 FTEs devoted to the entire CHARS project at AANDC including both S&T program and infrastructure project resources, and 2.5 FTEs devoted specifically to the CHARS infrastructure project at PWGSC. In addition, PWGSC's Centre of Expertise (COE) on Architecture and Engineering provides technical guidance in the areas of architecture, engineering, northern construction, project costing and quantity surveying, and laboratory design, and also reviews key deliverables to the core project team.

Through audit procedures, it was observed that the core project team possesses a breadth of knowledge and project management experience from scientific, research, architectural, and engineering backgrounds. In situations where the core project team does not have the detailed technical knowledge or experience, the project team has access to PWGSC's COE on Architecture and Engineering and the specialized skills of their resources. Project processes requiring extensive technical expertise are contracted through merit-based competitions to technical consultants with subject matter expertise, as was the case for the CHARS Design Consortium and the Construction Manager. Consistent with the findings of the audit, project management capacity is perceived by the CHARS project team members and management to be sufficient in terms of both technical skills and resourcing levels.

5.2.3 S&T Program Dependencies on the Facility Design

Project documentation reflects that the need to include key dependencies from the S&T program into the facility's design is an integral component to the success of the CHARS project as a whole. High-level S&T program dependencies are known; for example, the CHARS facility must meet the needs of being a world-class research facility and laboratory, include conference and meeting spaces, and have traditional knowledge areas. However, the S&T program and its detailed definition are being developed in parallel with the design of the facility, limiting the opportunity of the infrastructure team to incorporate detailed S&T program requirements into the facility design.

The approach to the development of the CHARS project is unique since real property projects typically undertaken by PWGSC require the design and construction of infrastructure to meet the needs of an existing program or Statement of Requirements, whereas the CHARS facility and S&T program are being designed and approved in parallel out of necessity to meet the project timelines of a completed facility by 2017. While this poses a risk to the long-term success of the CHARS project, and indirectly impacts the infrastructure project team's ability to expediently proceed through the design phase, this risk is well-known to all project resources at AANDC and PWGSC. In addition, the design of the facility to-date has been flexible to allow for minor design and program changes as the S&T program is further developed. Procurement options were also reviewed to determine the best approach for the CHARS infrastructure project. Options reviewed included the design-build, design-bid-build, construction management, and public-private-partnership approaches. The construction management approach for procurement was chosen because it facilitates flexibility to both the design of the facility and the order of construction work undertaken by splitting the construction tenders into multiple packages and procuring multiple service providers. The risk related to the parallel development of the S&T program is also acknowledged and considered as part of the risk management responsibilities of AANDC, PWGSC, the Design Consortium, and the Construction Manager.

The project is currently preparing for Effective Project Approval for both the infrastructure project and the S&T program. Once the Effective Project Approval has been received, it will be difficult to make significant changes to the infrastructure design or the S&T program.

5.2.4 Communication Protocols

Communication protocols were examined from two perspectives: the level of communication between the AANDC infrastructure project team and the AANDC S&T program team; and, the communication between the AANDC and PWGSC infrastructure project resources.

5.3.1 Risk Management Methodology

The audit examined whether a risk management approach existed to ensure the regular capture, reporting, analysis and mitigations of risks to the project in meeting its objectives. It also examined whether lessons learned and best practices from related projects and audits were appropriately considered during the development of the approach to undertake the CHARS infrastructure project.

The Project Charter specifies that PWGSC is responsible for risk management associated with the day-to-day project management of the infrastructure project, while AANDC is responsible for risk oversight and risk management for the entire CHARS project. In executing audit procedures, it was noted that a risk management methodology exists and is functioning as part of the PWGSC National Project Management System (NPMS) framework to support risk management over the project management of the infrastructure component of CHARS. NPMS risk components that are being applied to the CHARS risk management are highlighted below:

• The NPMS provides project resources with a Risk Management Plan template that identifies common project management risks and assessment criteria, and is derived from the PWGSC departmental risk management approach and common methodology. It also provides typical consequences associated with common real property risks, and provides a high-level tool to facilitate the monitoring process.
• The NPMS requires that the project team develop risk management plans prior to issuing any Requests for Proposals, to consider the risks of the services being procured.
• In accordance with contract terms and conditions and standard processes for third party contractors supporting real property projects, both the Design Consortium and Construction Manager are responsible for assessing and reporting risks to PWGSC on a monthly basis via Risk Registers, which are then discussed at the 'CHARS Project Management Committee'. The Risk Registers consider risks specific to each of their technical roles and ongoing services on the project. The Risk Registers employed on the CHARS project were developed using contractor-specific or proprietary risk management methodology and assessment processes by both the Design Consortium and Construction Manager.

In addition to the above risk management processes, the various procurement options being considered for the construction services were subject to a risk assessment to determine the best option to address the project's objectives and provide the best opportunity for integration with the S&T program. This risk assessment supported the decision to adopt the construction management approach to procurement for the CHARS project.

While the NPMS Risk Management Plan template is used for the CHARS project, there is an inconsistency between risk management methodologies (including taxonomy, assessment criteria, and processes for mitigation and escalation) across the departments and third party contractors. For example, the risk assessment methodologies used by AANDC, PWGSC, the Design Consortium, and the Construction Manager to determine risk impact and likelihood each employ different point-scales and definitions. Under these methodologies, risk escalation is also occurring on an ad-hoc basis, with each responsible party using professional judgment to determine when escalation is appropriate. While project resources felt that risks, to date, have been escalated to the appropriate level of governance in a timely manner, the inconsistency of risk methodologies used by stakeholders impedes AANDC's ability to properly account for all risks across the CHARS project. Additionally, while the PWGSC and contractor risk management process is focused solely on the infrastructure project and does not focus on strategic risks to the overall CHARS project, risk management should holistically focus on the greater scope of the CHARS project.

In the interest of unifying and strengthening the risk management methodology across the entire CHARS project, AANDC contracted an external risk management professional to facilitate a risk management workshop and to develop an integrated Risk Management Plan that all parties would use and contribute to. In August 2013, a risk management workshop was held with key resources from AANDC, PWGSC, the Design Consortium and the Construction Manager. An integrated Risk Management Plan was developed shortly thereafter that includes specific risk rating criteria and detailed definitions, assessment considerations, and escalation procedures to facilitate the regular and consistent capture, reporting, analysis, and mitigation of risks across the entire CHARS project. It also defines the roles and responsibilities for key stakeholders in the CHARS project, including oversight at the ADM, DG, Director, and core project team levels, the S&T program team, and third party contractors.

As designed, the integrated Risk Management Plan will employ a Risk Register tool to be reported and shared amongst key stakeholders on a monthly basis. Risk information provided by the core project team, S&T program team, and third party contractors will be synthesized into an AANDC Risk Register by the Risk Management Quality Assurance Analyst. The integrated Risk Management Plan was finalized in November 2013, and has yet to be implemented. The Risk Management Quality Assurance Analyst position has also yet to be filled. The new risk management methodology is anticipated to be implemented prior to the commencement of the construction phase of the project.

5.3.2 Lessons Learned and Best Practices from Previous Projects

In executing the planned audit procedures, it was determined that lessons learned and best practices were being incorporated into and considered for the CHARS infrastructure project. A variety of experience possessed by the project team was leveraged in informing the CHARS project, including resource-specific professional experience in the areas of science, research, architecture and engineering, experience with other federal real property and crown construction and infrastructure projects in the high Arctic, and through consultations with teams and management that oversaw infrastructure projects that faced similar requirements or challenges.

In funding the Feasibility Report through the Arctic Research Infrastructure Fund (ARIF), the ARIF provided opportunities for the project resources responsible for the success of CHARS to gain experience from other Arctic research infrastructure projects and incorporate lessons learned, best practices, and other unique considerations into their project planning and design for CHARS. Through the ARIF, the AANDC CHARS team was able to gain first-hand knowledge and experience of Arctic research infrastructure functionality, including governance, building approach, in-house program development, and gaps in the current S&T research field in Canada. Special considerations learned through the ARIF projects, such as transportation of materials and weather variability (and the subsequent impact it can have on the project schedule), were highlighted in the Feasibility Report as "inspiring examples".

The PWGSC CHARS team, particularly the Winnipeg regional office, which is responsible for real property projects in the Canadian Arctic and territories, has extensive relevant experience with a combined 30+ years of experience in Arctic construction and commissioning between the project management resources. The responsible Regional DG at PWGSC has experience with working with AANDC's ADM of NAO on the Giant Mine Remediation and Faro Mine projects, which have allowed for more effective communication at the management level based on the previously established strong working relationship with the ADM of NAO.

Additional consultations were undertaken by the AANDC CHARS team with other government departments and project teams that had used the construction management approach to understand the unique challenges associated with its adoption. The AANDC CHARS team was also able to draw upon the experience of the Canadian Network of Northern Research Operators and the PWGSC Centre of Expertise in Architecture and Engineering, which also possess experience in northern construction and laboratory design.

5.4.1 Costing Methodology

As per the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on the Management of Projects, project approval must be received at key milestones of project progress, specifically for Preliminary Project Approval and Effective Project Approval. To facilitate these approval processes, the National Project Management System's (NPMS) costing methodology and milestone approvals are aligned with the TB costing definitions for indicative and substantive cost estimates. TB approvals are received at the end of both the Definition and Design Phases as part of the NPMS. PWGSC is responsible for ensuring that cost estimates are produced as defined in the NPMS for Class D, C, B, and A estimates, with cost estimates evolving to be more accurate and specific as the project progresses.

As part of the design and construction management services contracted to third parties, the production of indicative and substantive cost estimates are the responsibility of the Design Consortium and the Construction Manager. Both contractors use their own methodologies to prepare initial cost estimates in line with the NPMS. Once estimates are prepared, AANDC and PWGSC project teams have the opportunity to review the cost estimates in detail, to ask questions, provide comments, and to ensure all design implications and features are considered. The PWGSC COE for Architecture and Engineering also reviews cost estimates to ensure that technical building standards are met within the cost estimate and supporting design. Following Preliminary Project Approval and the contracting of construction management advisory services, it is PWGSC practice to have both the Design Consortium and builder, in this case the Construction Manager, prepare Class C cost estimates using their distinct methodologies to ensure that estimates are accurate. The approach to dual estimates will be used for the remainder of the project to reduce the risk of inaccurate project costing.

5.4.2 Costing Contingencies

There are two types of contingencies related to the design and construction of a facility such as CHARS: design contingencies and construction contingencies. Both are defined to ensure that unknown costs are accounted for and are reasonably considered within the estimated budget. Cost contingencies will vary based on the statement of requirements, project complexity, and known risks.

Design contingencies, those covering minor changes to the design requirements of the facility or program requirements that subsequently affect design requirements, have been produced by third-party contractors throughout the CHARS project. As cost estimates are reviewed and become more detailed and accurate, the design contingency percentage allocation is reduced to reflect the increased accuracy. PWGSC continuously monitors contract spending for estimated costs and expenditures against the design contingency within the Project Black Book. While third-party contractors do not account for construction contingencies, their costing methodology must include an allocation for construction escalation costs over the life of the project.

Construction contingencies are accounted for as part of the Risk Management Contingency and Pre-Approved Amounts for Anticipated Amendments (PAAAs), a financial allowance of anticipated amendments related to the identified risks to the project. Projects that are not well-defined or have many known risks will have a higher PAAA allowance. While approval by the PWGSC Regional Project Manager is still required to access PAAA funds, this funding is set aside as part of the overall project budget. The CHARS infrastructure construction portion has approximately $14.1M (ie. 12%) allocated to PAAAs to account for known project risks and construction contingencies.

Because construction contingencies are highly unpredictable, there is still a risk that the PAAA allowance will be insufficient to cover project risks. Recognizing this, AANDC has developed a list of potential scope changes to the facility design that will allow for cost savings within the construction budget and regulations of the facility.

5.4.3 Cost Monitoring

PWGSC's Project Manager is responsible for monitoring and reporting the financial status of cash flow and draws against contract amounts and PAAAs within the Project Black Book. These financial status updates are provided to the AANDC Project Manager on a monthly basis for review and inter-departmental discussion. The financial status of the project is also discussed in detail at the 'CHARS Project Management Committee' between the AANDC and PWGSC Project Managers, the Design Consortium, and the Construction Manager. Discrepancies are escalated to the AANDC Project Director and to the 'CHARS Senior Management Committee' as necessary. The construction management approach to the implementation phase will also facilitate financial monitoring and control because of the iterative nature and relative flexibility of the approach.

5.5.1 Northern and Project Considerations

Because of the location and characteristics of the CHARS facility, it was important that resources with experience in Arctic construction and with an understanding of Aboriginal considerations were involved in the development of the project Requests-for-Proposal (RFP) and subsequent contracts. As the regional office responsible for Arctic and territorial construction, the PWGSC Winnipeg office has been assigned the responsibility of project management and contracting. PWGSC has procurement requirements outlined within Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements and AANDC has responsibilities to adhere to requirements within the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. As a result, Aboriginal opportunity clauses that provided contractors with incentives for using Aboriginal professional services, labour, and materials were included in the RFPs for both the design consultant and construction management services. In compliance with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, PWGSC notified several Aboriginal businesses of the upcoming procurement opportunity prior to issuance of the formal RFP to encourage the participation of Aboriginal businesses in bidding on construction management services work for the CHARS infrastructure project.

As part of the NPMS procurement process requirements, risk assessments were prepared prior to the issuance of RFPs for the design consultant and for construction management services to identify project and service-specific risks that could potentially impact the CHARS infrastructure project. Within both of these procurement risk management plans (ie. the Design Consultant Services Risk Management Plan and the Construction Management Advisory Services Risk Management Plan), the risk of client approvals and client needs being insufficiently defined for the stage of the project were identified. Following the procurement of the Design Consortium, it was identified in the Design Consortium's Risk Register and decided by AANDC that it would be beneficial to procure and hire the contractor for construction management services as soon as practicable to inform the construction tender packages and contracts to accommodate the ongoing S&T program development and required approvals. While the successful Construction Manager was only procured for advisory services to reduce the impact of risks associated with TB approval of funding, the contract provides PWGSC with an option to exercise the remaining construction management service portion of the contract once Effective Project Approval is received, thereby streamlining any subsequent contracting processes.

5.5.2 Procurement Practices

As procurement and acquisitions are the responsibility of PWGSC, departmental policy and practices were used to procure the major services required for the CHARS infrastructure project. This included the procurement processes for the design consultant and for the construction management services.

Procurement of architectural and engineering design consultant services: The PWGSC Real Property standard approach to evaluating proposals for architectural and engineering design consultant services requires the use an evaluation methodology that focuses heavily on the technical merit of the proposal and the bidder, and considers the financial bid as a relatively small component of the overall proposal score. In accordance with this standard practice, the design consultant services were subject to a final scoring methodology of 90% weighting for the technical merit score, which was awarded based on bidder qualifications, the quality of the proposed design, and other considerations and performance in the design exercise, with the remaining 10% weighting for the financial bid score.

Usage of a design exercise and design jury with relevant perspectives: In order to ensure that architectural and engineering design consultant services are awarded based on appropriate technical qualifications, it is PWGSC standard practice to have a two-part proposal process, with a group of bidders being required to prepare a detailed design and project approach that is presented to a design jury. The design jury included members from both PWGSC and AANDC project teams, technical experts from the construction and engineering industry, experts with experience in Northern construction, and academia. The jury provided input and recommended a bidder based on the total cumulative rankings given by jury members.

Fairness monitoring: For projects with a high visibility and a high level of public interest, such as the CHARS project, it is the policy of the PWGSC Acquisitions unit to use fairness monitoring services to oversee the procurement processes for both the design consultant and construction management services. The use of fairness monitoring services helps to ensure that the bidding processes were conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The fairness monitors oversaw the entire process, including attending and reviewing proceedings from the bidder's conference; the RFP question and answers response process; the drafting and issuing of amendments; the issuance of award and regret letters to bidders; and, the conduct of debriefs with unsuccessful firms to provide a rationale for the final scoring.

AANDC and PWGSC project team members' communication and interaction regarding procurement and contracting is defined, at a high level, within the Project Charter and Project Management Plan. Similar to the design jury, members of AANDC and PWGSC were part of the evaluation committee responsible for scoring bids received during the construction management services procurement process to ensure that the client organization and the overall CHARS project strategic objectives were being enabled.

5.5.3 Contract Monitoring and Reporting

As part of the Project Black Book, both the Design Consortium and the Construction Manager contracts are being actively monitored and reported on a monthly basis to AANDC by the PWGSC Project Manager. Contracts are monitored by:

• Total billed costs, remaining contract limitations, and forecasted costs;
• Contract amendment authorities and the level of delegated financial authority for amendments and change orders;
• Contract amendment amounts, date issued and approval information, and draws of amended contract values against the PAAAs; and,
• Initiated or contemplated change orders requested by contractors or the project team for discussion and approval/rejection.

Similar to team communications, there was initially some ambiguity on the process for initiating change orders to accommodate AANDC's needs as the client organization. The recently developed Communication Plan specifically requires that all change orders must be communicated through the PWGSC and AANDC Project Managers for discussion with the affected third party. Once clarified, PWGSC issues and approves change orders in accordance with established departmental processes. Change orders or amendments are entered into the Project Black Book once issued to ensure timely and accurate contract monitoring.