Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Summative Evaluation of the Pilot Project on Non-Lapsing Appropriations for Capital Asset Management


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

3.0 Options

The evaluation found that a mechanism that simulates two-year NLAs is consistent with federal government priorities and can result in a number of benefits such as the following:

  • Improved quality of decision making and longer-term planning;
  • Improved value for money; and
  • Optimal use of resources in the investment plan.

It also offers some value-added features over other mechanisms, including flexibility of amounts, timing, and predictability of access and use.

Options for managing capital assets were developed based on the assessment of the existing mechanisms against the benefits of the NLA as found by the evaluation and shown in Exhibit 2.3.

3.1 Options considered

Four options were considered and are described as follows:

Option 1

Extend the pilot project temporarily—This option would entail continuing the pilot project for one or two more years for participating departments only. It would include a Treasury Board requirement for performance measures, improved reporting, and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities within the Secretariat. This could provide the quantitative information and data that would facilitate a sounder basis for decisions about a potential expansion.

Option 2

Extension of NLA to qualifying departments—This option would only make the NLA mechanism available to departments that meet a range of capacity and maturity criteria such as Management Accountability Framework (MAF) assessment ratings, lapsing patterns and approved investment plans. To ensure that the value-added features of the mechanism are still present, the NLA mechanism would operate with a probationary period. Qualifying departments could have access to NLA up to a determined percentage of the capital vote (i.e., somewhere between 35% and 50%). Again, to ensure appropriate oversight, scope restrictions could also be applied depending on department capacity, including the following:

  • Size of the project;
  • Inclusion in the investment plan;
  • Limited access to other carry-forward mechanisms; and
  • Restricting application to identified high-risk cash flow projects.

This option carries some risk in that the data for this evaluation have been inadequate to fully assess the quantitative outcomes of the pilot, although the qualitative results are strong.

Option 3

Discontinue the NLA mechanism, enhance existing mechanisms and make available to qualifying departments—Some respondents believe that enhancing the existing mechanisms could offer value to the 5% carry-forward and reprofiling options as they currently exist. The extent to which this could provide the same benefits as the NLA, however, is unclear since it was beyond the scope of the evaluation to fully assess the other mechanisms in terms of their risks and benefits.

Option 4

Expand the NLA mechanism to be available to all custodial departments and agencies—This option would see the NLA operating as a mechanism available to all custodial departments and agencies, similar to other existing mechanisms.

3.2    Analysis of options

An analysis of the pros and cons of each of the considered options is presented in Exhibit 3.1.

Exhibit 3.1—Pros and Cons of Proposed Options
Option Pros Cons
1. Extend the pilot project for one to two years With strengthened performance measurement requirements, this option would provide evidence to confirm the qualitative findings and provide greater certainty upon which to base a decision on a potential expansion of the pilot. Would further delay a decision.
2. Extension of NLA to qualifying departments Improved government-wide spending on capital assets;

Consistent with evaluation findings on improved financial and project management and improved decision making;

Consistent with evaluation findings on need for a mechanism that offers predictability, flexibility (in terms of timing and amounts) and decreased administrative burden.
Administrative data not extensive enough to confirm findings.
3. Discontinue NLA pilot project, enhance existing mechanisms and make available to qualifying departments It may be administratively simpler to enhance an existing mechanism than to roll out the NLA on a larger scale. Since the evaluation scope did not include the results of possible enhancements to existing mechanisms, it is unclear to what extent improvements in capital asset management could be achieved.
4. Expand the NLA mechanism to be available to all custodial departments and agencies Improved government-wide spending on capital assets;

Consistent with evaluation findings on improved financial and project management and improved decision making;

Consistent with evaluation findings on need for a mechanism that offers predictability, flexibility (in terms of timing and amounts), better timing and decreased administrative burden.
Administrative data not extensive enough to confirm findings.

The administrative burden of developing and maintaining an NLA mechanism in addition to the department's access to the existing two mechanisms may exceed the benefits achieved by the NLA.

Contrary to evaluation findings, which indicate the need for criteria to select participants who have best chance of achieving similar benefits as participants in the pilot.

Options 1, 2 and 4 are consistent with the evaluation findings. However, given the small number of participating departments and the evaluation's data limitations due to late and inconsistent reporting requirements, these options may need further study. It was outside of the scope of the evaluation to assess how existing mechanisms could be expanded to achieve the benefits of the NLA. Recommendations in section 5.0 are made in the context of both evaluation findings and limitations.

4.0 Summary of Conclusions

4.1 Relevance


  • The use of NLAs is consistent with federal government priorities for capital asset management and fiscal discipline.
  • The pilot project demonstrates that departments see a need to deploy a mechanism such as NLA that facilitates the management of large federal government capital programs.

4.2 Success


  • There is evidence to suggest that improved financial management of capital asset budgets has occurred. In addition, some pilot departments achieved lower net lapses than in previous years.
  • The evaluation found that there was improved project management under the NLA pilot.
  • The evaluation found that risk management improved as a direct result of the NLA mechanism.
  • There has been progress on almost all of the pilot's intermediate outcomes, which include improved quality of decisions for capital asset management, enhanced value for money and optimal allocation of resources in the investment plan.
  • All participating departments were able to achieve the expected outcomes of the NLA pilot to some extent.
  • It is very likely that the ultimate outcomes of the pilot project can be achieved, given the significant progress toward all intermediate outcomes.
  • Key informants identified a number of positive unintended outcomes.

4.3 Implementation and Design


  • The division of the roles and responsibilities between the Secretariat and participating departments was clearly articulated. However, this was not the case within the Secretariat.
  • SOPs were not clearly defined and documented until late in the pilot project.
  • The NLA pilot project did not have adequate quantitative data and reporting information to support an assessment of its overall success. However, annual reports provide some information to facilitate decisions about the future of the mechanism. Departments did not provide accrual-based reports during the pilot project.

4.4 Best Practices, Lessons Learned and Risks


  • A number of best practices were found regarding governance of the pilot project, maximizing high-quality decision making, and using the NLA mechanism in concert with other mechanisms.
  • One important lesson learned from the pilot project is that capacity should be a criterion for determining a department's access to NLA.
  • This evaluation concludes that the risks posed by NLAs are reasonable and manageable.

4.5 Alternative Mechanisms


  • As they currently exist, reprofiling and using a 5% carry-forward would not achieve similar outcomes as NLAs since they do not include the timing, predictability and flexibility benefits associated with NLAs.