Audit of Real Property - Service Line Projects

December 2025
Published: March 31, 2026

Table of Contents

• Acronyms and Symbols
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Findings and Recommendations
• Conclusion
• About the Audit
• Annex A: Recommendations and Management Response and Action Plan

Acronyms and Symbols

ACM

International Platform Branch

ARD

Policy and Planning Bureau

AWD

Project Delivery, Professional & Technical Services Bureau

AWO

Project and Program Management Office

AAGB

International Procurement Unit, Real Property

AWSB

Physical Security Technologies

AWST

Physical Security Programs section

CSD

Security and Readiness Bureau

CSG

Security Policy and Governance Division

DoC

Duty of Care

GAC

Global Affairs Canada

HQ

Headquarters

IWP

Integrated Work Plan

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

SLPMF

Service Line Project Management Framework

Executive Summary

In accordance with Global Affairs Canada’s approved 2024-2026 Risk-based Audit Plan, the Office of the Chief Audit Executive and Special Investigations conducted an Audit of Real Property - Service Line Projects.

Background

The Government of Canada manages a property portfolio of approximately 20,000 leased or owned properties across Canada and around the world, and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) is the designated custodian of real property outside Canada that supports diplomatic and consular purposes. Accordingly, the International Platform Branch is authorized to enter into purchase and lease agreements to manage the portfolio on behalf of the department, in accordance with Treasury Board policies.

GAC’s real property portfolio abroad includes chanceries, official residences, and staff quarters, which serve as enablers of Government of Canada program delivery. Over 7,900 employees (including locally engaged staff) are accommodated in more than 2,400 properties that have a replacement value of more than $3 billion. The International Platform Branch is responsible for managing real property abroad, which includes the delivery and management of Minor Projects (officially referred to as Service Line Projects) valued between $25,000 and $2.5 million. To support the delivery of these projects, the branch launched a standardized process in August 2023, called the Service Line Projects Management Framework (referred to as the Framework in this report). The Framework aims to streamline project delivery, increase oversight, and compliance with policy requirements.

Objective and Scope

The objective of the engagement was to assess whether the Department effectively manages and delivers its Real Property Minor Projects, including those financed by Duty of Care funds, across the mission network.

The audit focused on practices for implementing Minor Projects from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2025, excluding contracting processes as this area was examined in previous audits.

Conclusion

Overall, the Framework in place to support the planning and delivery of minor projects is a step in the right direction, but improvements are needed to make delivery faster and more reliable. Stronger communication, better data management, and clear accountability will help ensure projects meet mission needs and support staff safety.

Recommendations

• Set clear rules for when projects need re-approval after major changes, and track milestones consistently.
• Engage all stakeholders early to align priorities and speed up procurement.
• Create clear communication protocols so everyone stays informed throughout the project.
• Improve data management by linking the Service Delivery Portal with the financial system and setting rules for record retention.
• Track and maintain Duty of Care-funded assets to ensure accountability and mission.

Introduction

In the departmental Enterprise Risk Profile, real property management is identified as one of the top five risk areas. In particular, the delivery of minor project investments at missions remains a key concern. This audit assessed how these projects are planned, communicated, tracked and delivered, including projects funded under Duty of Care for mission safety and security needs.

Overview of Minor Projects

In 2022, the International Platform Branch (ACM) conducted a Governance and Process Review of the Real Property projects. This led to the development of a coherent Framework for planning and delivering minor projects ranging from $25,000 to $2.5 million. These projects address real property assets and infrastructure needs at missions, including refurbishment, repair and maintenance, space reconfiguration, and security upgrades. This Framework aimed to gain logistical efficiencies and reduce delays caused by administrative red tape. Between April and December 2024, approximately 162 minor projects were completed at a cost of over $16 million.

The delivery models for Minor Projects include HQ-led, Mission-led, and Mission-led with HQ support. A pilot launched in late summer 2022 allowed certain missions more autonomy in delivering projects, leading to better outcomes, including 89 projects completed in 16 months. Since launching the Framework in August 2023, the International Platform Branch has refined it to handle outstanding issues. For instance, the 2025 Mission-Led Project Delivery Framework enables faster decision-making and better support for missions. These developments were acknowledged and considered in formulating the audit recommendations.

Key Players and the Integrated Work Plan Process Cycle

Three bureaus - Project Delivery, Professional & Technical Services (AWD), Policy and Planning (ARD), and Security and Readiness (CSD) – work together to identify potential projects for inclusion in the Integrated Work Plan (IWP), which is the Department’s planned annual program of work to be delivered at missions, as illustrated here:

Findings and Recommendations

1. Planning, Execution and Delivery of Minor Projects

It was expected that Minor Projects would be executed and delivered in accordance with the approved plan, including defined objectives and budgets.

Guidance materials are available that outline expectations for defining a project and the requirements for obtaining project approval. However, the Framework does not establish clear criteria for when changes to a project's scope or budget warrant a new approval. Additionally, a review of a sample of Minor Projects found that 7 of 10 did not include identified milestones. As a result, it was nearly impossible to determine whether projects were progressing according to schedule and were being monitored. The lack of defined milestones limits oversight and accountability.

Despite planned adaptations, most projects faced delays and budget overruns. Mission staff indicated the pilot approach was beneficial, particularly in missions with adequate capacity for project management. External factors, like procurement timelines, complicated project execution. Improved approval processes have mitigated some bottlenecks, but further clarity is needed. Several external factors that caused project delays were highlighted. These include the International Procurement Unit, Real Property (AAGB), standard procurement timelines, which often extend the planned project schedules. While the Framework is designed to streamline projects delivery and reduce delays attributable to administrative red tape, AAGB’s role in contracting remains essential to implementation. Depending on the nature of the service request, AAGB’s service standards range from three to 36 weeks. These timelines can present challenges for projects with shorter delivery windows.

Additionally, missions faced challenges in sourcing contractors that meet Canadian Standards, particularly in regions with limited market capacity or where local contractors were not familiar with Canadian requirements. Late funding approvals were also cited as an issue specific to the Pilot projects, often delaying project initiation and compressing delivery timelines.

On a positive note, interviews with stakeholders at HQ indicated that project approval processes had improved under the Framework, particularly with the introduction of streamlined approval pathways, which had helped reduce previous bottlenecks in securing approvals and enabled more timely project initiation.

These findings suggest that while the Framework provides a foundational structure for managing Minor Projects, further improvements are needed in clarifying guidance, especially regarding the management of significant project scope changes and milestone tracking. Addressing these gaps will strengthen oversight and support the successful delivery of Minor Projects.

Recommendation 1

The ADM International Platform Branch should strengthen the delivery of the Minor Projects by:

• Establishing thresholds and triggers for the re-approval of Minor Projects due to significant changes, and ensuring consistent milestone tracking throughout the end-to-end project processes; and
• Enhancing engagement among all stakeholders early in the process to strengthen alignment, streamline documentation, and improve procurement timelines, thereby reducing the risk of project delays.

2. Stakeholder Engagement

Implementation of the Framework involves the engagement of multiple stakeholders comprising AWD, ARD, CSD and missions. The audit expected to find structured processes to engage all stakeholders through transparent communication and collaboration across the project lifecycle.

Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities

A dedicated SharePoint page has been established for the Framework, containing key resources such as process maps, a training deck, and an overview of roles and responsibilities. In addition, a training session was offered to record owners at HQ, the stakeholders responsible for developing and delivering the project, and for ensuring that records in the Service Delivery Portal (Portal) are kept up to date with accurate and complete information. However, there was no coordinated or structured communication directed at missions regarding the rollout of the Framework or subsequent updates. Specifically, formal training, onboarding sessions, and reference materials were not provided for missions. This lack of guidance may result in inconsistent application of the Framework requirements and may hinder efforts to standardize project planning and delivery across missions.

Additionally, roles and responsibilities at the mission level for the three types of delivery model (HQ-led, Mission-led, and Mission-led with support from a record owner) were not defined. As a result, missions often found responsibilities to be ambiguous, overlapping, and subject to change, leading to confusion and operational inefficiencies in project delivery.

Information Sharing

Tools are in place to facilitate and guide stakeholder engagement during the delivery of Minor Projects, such as the Portal and process maps that outline certain steps for stakeholder updates. The Portal is intended to serve as a project management tool for planning, delivering, and monitoring the Real Property Services Program of Work. The Mission Hub section of the Portal provides missions with access to project-related information; however, the portal lacks functionality for timely updates on projects to support effective monitoring, transparency, and overall project management.

Although process maps identify key points for stakeholder updates, their application varies significantly among record owners. Missions and CSD reported that they often need to proactively seek information, creating gaps in awareness and reducing engagement during critical phases.

Collaboration on Duty of Care Funded Minor Projects

Duty of Care-funded projects, a subset of Minor Projects that address physical security vulnerabilities at missions abroad, add complexity due to compliance requirements and the involvement of multiple stakeholders. These projects are jointly managed by CSD and AWD who share the overarching goal of protecting personnel abroad but have differing operational priorities. CSD focuses on addressing security vulnerabilities and ensuring compliance with security requirements, whereas AWD emphasizes timely procurement, delivery and efficient resource coordination while also aiming to meet security requirements. These differing priorities can occasionally lead to tension between the two bureaus.

This challenge is further compounded as the definition of security-related needs has broadened beyond physical infrastructure to include occupational health and safety, increasing the number of projects eligible for Duty of Care funding. Combined with aging infrastructure at many missions, this expansion has made prioritization among limited resources increasingly complex, requiring a balance of diverse needs and perspectives from CSD, AWD, and missions.

Addressing these challenges requires proactive collaboration among stakeholders involved in the planning and delivery of DoC-funded Minor Projects. Recent efforts initiated between the Project and Program Management Office (AWO) and the Security Policy and Governance Division (CSG) aim to improve collaboration through shared prioritization and joint decision-making. While still in the early stages, these initiatives represent progress toward integrated stakeholder engagement and strategic management of Duty of Care-funded projects.

Recommendation 2

The ADM International Platform Branch should formalize communication protocols to ensure consistent and timely information sharing among all Minor Projects stakeholders, supporting active engagement across the project lifecycle.

3. Information for Decision-Making

The audit expected to find standards, processes, and tools in place to support access to high-quality data and informed decision-making in the management of Minor Projects.

Data Collection – Processes and Tools

AWO has developed standards, processes and tools that provide structured guidance for data collection, monitoring, and reporting throughout the project lifecycle. The primary tool for collecting key data for Minor Projects is the Portal, which acts as a centralized database and project management tool to deliver Real Property Services, including Minor Projects. A minimum data requirement checklist is in place to outline the key information that must be included in the Portal for all Minor Projects, supporting proper monitoring and reporting.

Key information in the Portal is often incomplete, inaccurate, or unreliable. None of the 14 projects sampled included all the information as outlined in the checklist. The audit team recognizes that the checklist was implemented in 2024 and therefore not all of the projects in the sample would have been subject to this evolving approach. Interviews with HQ stakeholders indicated that the checklist applies to all Minor Projects regardless of the size and delivery method, which could create an administrative burden for some record owners without adding value. Moreover, certain information in the Portal, such as the budget marker and expected completion date, can be changed during project implementation. Although a record of each change is automatically created, this undermines data integrity and limits accurate monitoring and reporting. Management has acknowledged these limitations and initiated corrective measures.

A new record classification, entitled Material Management, has been introduced in the Portal to group projects that were previously classified as Minor Projects but do not require comprehensive project planning and are typically more transactional in nature - for example, x-ray machines. This targeted approach is expected to refine project categorization within the Portal, as the checklist will no longer apply to these projects, thereby improving the integrity and accuracy of the data.

In addition, a new initiative, the Program Records Sampling Process, was recently launched by AWD to identify opportunities for improving the accuracy and completeness of the Framework records in the Portal. Under this initiative, a random sample of 10% of Minor Project records will be reviewed and assessed by AWD against the minimum data requirement checklist. This process is expected to generate insights and support targeted improvements in data quality.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Metric Monitoring Framework are in place to monitor and report on Real Property Services. KPIs for Minor Projects are derived from project data in the Portal such as the number of projects delivered during the fiscal year and the overall health, measured by whether Minor Projects are delivered within planned scope, budget, and timelines. AWO reports on these KPIs through dashboards that support information sharing and decision-making. However, the current incompleteness of data in the Portal limits the accuracy of reporting. For several projects, key information, such as whether projects are delivered on scope, on budget, and on time, is missing, resulting in their exclusion from KPI calculations and reports.

Financial performance data for Minor Projects is not currently tracked or reported. Since the Portal does not reconcile with the Financial Administration System, the audit team was unable to obtain a complete and accurate picture of overall Minor Project expenditures. The absence of financial performance tracking and reporting can limit financial oversight, skew reporting, impair informed decision-making, and increase the risk of fraud that may go unnoticed.

Information Management Practices

The audit expected to find accessible documentation to support effective monitoring of the planning and delivery of Minor Projects.

Currently, there is no guidance for document retention, and no centralized document repository accessible to all stakeholders involved in the Minor Project planning and delivery. A review of 14 sampled Minor Projects found that, in three cases, key documentation was not retained in a central location by record owners before leaving the department. In addition, supporting documentation for initial or subsequent budget changes or timelines was incomplete for some of the sampled projects. The absence of guidance on document retention can lead to inconsistent practices across HQ and missions, reducing transparency and accountability in planning and delivery.

Recommendation 3

The ADM International Platform Branch should strengthen information management practices to support informed decision-making by:

• Aligning the Service Delivery Portal with the Financial Administration System to provide accurate expenditure tracking and financial reporting; and
• Defining processes for the access and retention of project records in accordance with applicable Treasury Board policy and departmental recordkeeping procedures.

4. Duty of Care Funded Assets

During the early implementation of the Framework, Minor Projects also comprised Minor Physical Security Enhancements projects relating to the maintenance and repair of security equipment at missions. However, at the time of the audit, these types of projects were no longer considered part of the Framework, as they represent recurring asset delivery and replacement functions. They are now addressed under the Material Management Framework within the Real Property Services Operating Model.

Although these DoC funded assets were reclassified as material management during the audit period, they remained part of the audit scope. These systems are critical for protecting personnel and information and represent a significant investment funded through the DoC envelope. To ensure DoC resources are used responsibly, the audit expected these assets to be properly installed, safeguarded, maintained, and managed in line with applicable policies and lifecycle requirements.

At HQ, three divisions oversee the lifecycle management of security equipment at missions, which includes delivery, installation, maintenance, and support.

• Physical Security Programs section (AWST) manages security detections and minor security equipment, which are treated as material management. This unit handles replacements, when needed.
• Physical Security Implementation section (AWSA) is responsible for legacy Closed-Circuit Television system (CCTV).
• Physical Security Technologies section (AWSB) oversees Mission Video Management System, Chancery Electronic Security System and Personal Safety Radio Network. Foreign Services Information Technology Professionals (FSITP) at missions are equipped to assess and troubleshoot these systems, which are supported by documented procedures on installation, usage, troubleshooting and maintenance, along with training during maintenance trips and SharePoint resources.

Larger security detection equipment, such as X-rays, often requires specialized expertise, depends on local vendors, and lacks centralized guidance. The mission’s readiness team manages daily equipment, with maintenance practices ranging from formal service contracts to ad hoc arrangements. Missions are expected to report issues or request support from HQ.

Observations indicate that staff did not always have sufficient technical knowledge to manage this equipment. Missions sometimes faced delays in accessing timely support or technical expertise, leaving them to operate faulty or dysfunctional equipment. These challenges can compromise security controls and place an undue burden on personnel.

Safeguarding and access control requirements are outlined in the Manual of Security Instructions and the Security Standards for Electronic Equipment. These documents are currently being updated, and missions generally comply with their requirements.

Recommendation 4

The ADM International Platform Branch should implement mechanisms for tracking and maintaining Duty of Care-funded assets to support missions in strengthening accountability, with consideration for the diverse operational environments across the mission network. 

Conclusion

The Framework aimed to improve logistical efficiency by reviewing the full scope of mission work collectively rather than on a project-by-project basis, reducing delays due to administrative processes.

Overall, the Framework provides a structured approach to planning and delivering Minor Projects; however, improvements are needed to support effective and timely delivery. Specifically, strengthening stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle will improve coordination and accountability. In addition, improving the centralized repository for project documentation will support accurate and comprehensive data collection, enabling effective monitoring and reporting. A consistent approach to tracking and reporting Minor Project expenditures is needed to strengthen financial oversight. Moreover, clear processes for managing Duty of Care assets will help reinforce mission readiness and physical security.

These enhancements are essential for delivering Minor Projects efficiently, transparently, and in line with organizational priorities, thereby strengthening operational effectiveness and service outcomes.

About the Audit

Statement of Conformance

The audit was conducted in conformance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' Global Internal Audit Standards and with the Treasury Board Policy and Directive on Internal Audit, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

Objective

The objective of the engagement was to assess whether the Department effectively manages and delivers its Real Property Service Line Projects (referred to as Minor Projects), including those financed by Duty of Care funds, across the mission network.

Scope

The scope of the audit included practices in place to implement the department’s Real Property Minor Projects from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2025. The scope did not include the assessment of contracting processes, as this area was examined in previous audits.

Criteria

The criteria were developed following the completion of the detailed risk assessment.

1. Minor Projects are executed and delivered as planned.
2. Information related to Minor Projects is sufficient for monitoring and reporting to support decision-making.
3. Duty of Care-funded Minor Projects at missions are managed with respect to the prudent use of resources and in compliance with relevant policies and guidance.

Approach and Methodology

The audit methodology included, but was not limited to, the following:

• Documentation review and analysis:
  • Relevant policies and directives;
  • Strategic and operational documents;
  • Past audit and engagement results.
• Interviews with key stakeholders at HQ and a sample of missions (Tokyo, Guatemala City, and Addis Ababa)
• Field work (Mexico City, the Hague, Berlin)
• Data Analysis:
  • Population analysis focusing on data collected in the Service Delivery Portal;
  • A risk-based judgmental sample of 14 Minor Projects, including 10 regular Minor Projects and 4 Increased Delegation of Authority to Missions projects was reviewed. (Since the sample was selected using judgmental sampling, the results cannot be extrapolated to the population.)

Annex A: Recommendations and Management Response and Action Plan