Document 1
Office of the Auditor General
FOLLOW-UP TO
THE 2006 AUDIT OF SURFACE OPERATIONS
2007 Report
November 22,
2007
Chapter
Conseil
23 November 2007 / le 23 novembre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Council Audit Working Group / Groupe de travail
du Conseil sur la vérification
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager /
Directeur des services municipaux
(613)
580-2424 x 25657, Kent.Kirkpatrick@ottawa.ca
That Council receive this report for information.
Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du rapport.
During City Council’s consideration of the Auditor General’s 2006 Annual Report, the following two motions were approved.
Surface
Operations
Moved by
Councillor S. Desroches
Seconded by
Councillor P. Feltmate
WHEREAS the
City’s Surface Operations provides an important service to the citizens of
Ottawa;
WHEREAS the
OAG’s 2006 annual report stated in recommendation 12 “that the Surface
Operations branches budget not be increased until the Branch has a good
understanding of their financial situation.”
WHEREAS City
Council should have all the relevant information in advance of the 2008 City of
Ottawa Budget approvals process;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the Council Audit Working Group report back to City Council
prior to the 2008 Budget process on the progress made by the Surface Operations
Branch in implementing all of the OAG’s recommendations, and include an
assessment by the OAG.
CARRIED
Moved by
Councillor R. Jellett
Seconded by
Councillor P. Hume
That the
Audit Working Group be directed to review all of the audit recommendations and
report back to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and
Council prior to the 2008 Budget process on the progress made on all of the
OAG’s recommendations, and include an assessment by the OAG on those areas
where management and staff disagree on the timing or approach to the
implementation of the recommendations.
CARRIED
This report has been prepared in response to the above-noted Motions.
The Council Audit Working Group (CAWG) was scheduled to meet on the morning of November 29, 2007, to receive a presentation from the Auditor General and the Director, Surface Operations, on the 2007 follow up audit on the 2006 Audit of Surface Operations Branch. Due to the potential carry over of the November 28 Council meeting, the CAWG meeting was cancelled. In this regard, the follow-up to the 2006 Audit of Surface Operations was circulated and discussed with the members of the CAWG off line.
Attached at Document 1 is the Auditor General’s report inclusive of the overall management comment. This audit report will also be included in the Auditor General’s 2007 Annual Report, however, is being provided to Council at this time in response to Motion No. 14/3. The Audit report includes an assessment by the Auditor General on the progress made by the Surface Operations Branch in implementing the OAG’s recommendations from the 2006 Audit of Surface Operations Branch.
The Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council, on November 6 and November 14 respectively, considered the report entitled “CAWG (i) 2005 and 2006 Audit Recommendations – Quarterly Action Status Report and (ii) Corporate Overtime Policy”, ACS2007-CMR-OCM-0008. The report included the ongoing action status tracking for both the 2005 and 2006 audit recommendations as of September 21, 2007.
In addition to the above reporting, attached at Document 2 is the work plan outlining the 2006 audit recommendations where management did not agree with the audit recommendation. At its meeting of July 25, 2007, the CAWG agreed to a process whereby the City Manager and the Auditor General would meet to review the items, noting that many were administrative in nature and there was possibility that resolution could be reached through further discussion. If there continued to be disagreement or items of a more substantial nature, those items would remain on the work plan for future consideration by the CAWG. The CAWG will continue to meet in 2008 in this regard. This work plan is being provided to Council in response to Motion no. 14/4. The Auditor General has provided his satisfaction with the proposed work plan to address the remaining outstanding 2006 recommendations.
External consultation on this report was not required. Consultation with internal stakeholders was carried out where necessary.
There are no financial implications for this subject report.
Document 1 – 2007 Follow Up Audit on the Surface Operations Branch.
Document 2 – CAWG Work plan on the 2006 Audit Recommendations requiring resolution.
The CAWG will continue to meet in 2008 to discuss the outstanding 2006 audit recommendations requiring resolution and any other business as required.
Document 1
Office of the Auditor General
FOLLOW-UP TO
THE 2006 AUDIT OF SURFACE OPERATIONS
2007 Report
November 22,
2007
Chapter
Table
of Contents
2.1 Management Framework and Strategic Planning. 6
2.2 Financial and HR Reporting. 6
2.3 Staffing, Overtime and Training. 7
2.6 Performance Measurement/Data Collection. 8
2.8 Standards, Standard Operating Procedures,
and Independent Monitoring9
3 Areas Requiring Additional Effort 10
Appendix
A: Assessment and Comments - Status of
Recommendation Implementation
In the fall of 2007, a limited follow up audit, was conducted to address progress on the 39 recommendations of the 2006 Audit of Surface Operations.
Surface Operations has made significant progress since the fieldwork phase of the original audit during the summer of 2006. While full implementation of some significant and extensive recommendations (e.g. operational planning and zero-based budgeting) are not yet complete, some basic fundamentals are now in place to facilitate continued progression towards desired results. Management’s acknowledgement of many of the issues and the commencement of the Strategic Alignment Initiative prior to the audit contributed to the progress to date.
It is premature to determine the full benefit which will be obtained by implementation of the new management framework, financial and other reporting systems and reports, strategic plans and operational planning as well as the Strategic Alignment Initiative. However, we are cautiously optimistic that the Branch has rounded the corner and is heading in the right direction.
A summary of our assessment follows:
· Management Framework and Strategic Planning - The Branch has undergone substantive and widespread change and has successfully initiated a change management program which addresses deep organizational, structural and management system problems identified in the original audit.
· Financial and Human Resources Reporting - Human resources and financial reports have been greatly improved in content, frequency and on-line access. They continue to be modified and enhanced by the Technical Services staff. Operations Clerks reporting to Technical Services Division have been hired and are physically located in the field to perform data entry, provide support for HR, etc.
· Staffing, Overtime and Training - Staffing requirements are being addressed but are not yet complete. The Operations Planning Framework project will determine the basic staffing levels required for each activity by month. Policies and procedures to ensure consistent use of overtime are being developed. Training has improved, in particular for rural roads and urban roads.
· Forestry - Advances have been made with the TREE program and other Council supported initiatives. However, some initiatives identified in approved strategy documents cannot be implemented pending Council approval to the forestry budget.
· Fleet - We are satisfied with the progress of Surface Operations Branch in these areas. A complete follow-up audit of Fleet Services will be completed in 2009.
· Performance Measurement/Data Collection –Progress is being made. As this function evolves and the Operational Planning Framework project advances, it is intended that more data will be captured and the reports will advance to more levels of detail and usefulness such as measuring activities and accomplishment units.
· Operational Planning - While some beats have been developed, the Branch is still too reactive and does not take a consistent proactive approach to routine maintenance. Work prioritization continues to be determined largely based on public complaints and requests for service records (311).
· Standards, Standard Operating Procedures, and Independent Monitoring - The Branch continues to show limited advancement in the development of maintenance standards, standard operating procedures and quality assurance programs. Road patrols have not been reinstated and a quality assurance function for Roads has not been implemented.
· 2008 Budget - The development and implementation of required financial and other reporting systems, which will enable management to prudently manage the Surface Operations budget, are underway.
With other areas now progressing towards stabilization, it is time to devote more attention to operational planning to ensure consistent, efficient and effective approaches to work. That is, the inter-related areas of standards, standard operating procedures, operational planning and independent monitoring should be given increased focus and priority. This is key to addressing many of the operational issues within the Branch, such as staffing, scheduling of work, controlling overtime and streamlining of supervisory levels.
In order to effectively achieve acceptable standards of work, standard operating procedures must be developed, documented and communicated. These procedures will then drive the operational planning requirements. Then independent monitoring must be conducted to identify problems which may require refinement of procedures, training or planning. This monitoring must be done independently of the day-to-day supervisors who have a different focus.
In the original 2006 audit, we recommended that the Surface Operations budget not be increased until Surface Operations has a good understanding of their financial situation. We recommend that this restriction be maintained because Surface Operations has not completed its operational planning (standards, standard operating procedures, planning of work and quality assurance) initiatives. This is key to addressing many of the operational issues within the Branch, such as staffing, scheduling of work, controlling overtime and streamlining of supervisory levels.
Once these projects are completed, the Branch will have a better understanding of financial requirements.
We believe that Surface Operations has made significant progress since the fieldwork phase of the original audit during the summer of 2006. While full implementation of some significant and extensive recommendations (e.g. operational planning and zero based budgeting) are not yet complete, some of the basic fundamentals are now in place to facilitate continued progression towards desired results.
There continues to be many areas requiring improvement. It is premature to determine the full benefit which will be obtained by implementation of the new management framework, financial and other reporting systems and reports, strategic plans which address enterprise-wide risk management, standard operating procedures and operational planning as well as the Strategic Alignment Initiative. However, we are cautiously optimistic that the Branch has rounded the corner and is heading in the right direction.
In the original 2006 audit, we recommended:
12. That the Surface Operations budget not be increased until Surface Operations has a good understanding of their financial situation.
13. That the Surface Operations budget not be increased while the Branch refines the manner it which it formulates its budget requests and redirects existing funds to programs which do have a strategic plan and related specific budget , specifically the Forestry program.
As Surface Operations now has a better understanding of their financial situation, we recommend that Council should evaluate any 2008 budget requests based on their own merit.
Overall Management Comment
Management agrees with the recommendation.
As noted in the Auditor General’s letter and
report dated November 22, 2007, the report reflects the discussion between both
parties at the November 15, 2007 meeting.
We would like to thank the Auditor General’s
office for their strong endorsement of the significant progress achieved to
date and alignment by the branch relating to the Auditor General’s recommendations.
In 2006, the Office of the Auditor General conducted a comprehensive audit of Surface Operations (summer programs)[1].
In the fall of 2007, a limited follow up audit, requested by City Council motion[2], was conducted to address progress on the 39 recommendations of the 2006 audit. The scope of the follow-up audit was to objectively evaluate the progress of each recommendation and to formulate an overall assessment on the progress and direction by the Branch.
An assessment and contextual comments for each recommendation may be found in Appendix A of this report. An overall assessment is summarized below. This opinion was based on reviewing Branch documents and interviewing staff. Overall there is evidence of the progress the Branch has been able to achieve since the initial audit. The conclusion to this report provides a brief synopsis of areas we believe require additional effort.
As indicated in this report and the supporting Appendix A, good progress has been made in many areas. Changes and accomplishments to date, demonstrate a commitment on the part of management to implement most recommendations. Additional effort should be directed to the general area of operation planning, specifically standards, standard operating procedures, planning of work and quality assurance, as discussed in the sections below. This is key to addressing many of the operational issues within the Branch, such as staffing, scheduling of work, controlling overtime and streamlining of supervisory levels.
Full implementation of all recommendations is very dependent upon the completion of these operational planning items. As a result, the full impact of the audit recommendations and changes to the organization will not be realized for some time.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 1 (Strategic Alignment Initiative visioning), 2 (Enterprise-wide risk management), 3 (Annual plans), 24 (Streamline organizational charts).
Consistent with Branch Management’s representations, the Branch has undergone substantive and widespread change and has successfully initiated a change management program which will address deep organizational, structural and management system problems identified in the original audit.
We have reviewed the 2007 Branch Risk Identification and Response Plan, which identifies the highest enterprise-wide risks and the identified action items to address these risks. For the most part, we are in concurrence with the identified approach and priorities.
Technical Services Division management team has been hired (staffed fall 2006 to summer 2007); including program managers responsible for operations planning, performance measurement and business services (includes financial), administrative services (includes HR), operations research and stakeholder relations. This has had a significant impact on the ability of the Branch to plan and respond at a proactive and strategic level.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 5 (Weekly reporting), 16 (Financial actual vs. budget reports), 17 (Impact of cut-backs), 18 (Impact of capital plans on operational budget), 19 (HR reports).
As mentioned throughout the original audit report, many of the shortfalls of the Branch stemmed back to a lack of supporting management systems. In the follow-up audit, we noted significant recent development in these areas. HR and financial reports have been greatly improved in content, frequency and on-line access. They continue to be modified and enhanced by the Technical Services staff. Operations Clerks reporting to Technical Services Division have been hired (staffed spring 2007) and are physically located in the field to perform data entry, provide support for HR, etc. We anticipate continued improvement as recently hired staff evolve in the newly created positions.
In the original report, it was noted that to maximize the preservation of City owned capital assets, Surface Operations needed to be consulted more since capital decisions, particularly for roads, both those to take and not take action, have a significant impact on the Branch’s operational costs and efficiency. Interviews with Surface Operations staff indicated increased communication with the Infrastructure group to meet this requirement.
While significant improvements in accountability and reporting were noted, we did not see evidence of narrative reports which explained variances, short term plans, etc.
As stated in the original report, “If Maintenance Coordinators, Zone Supervisors and Managers were all required to prepare a regular report for their superiors it would increase accountability. Weekly reports, discussing both the past and upcoming week, indicating items such as the weather conditions past and forecast, overtime encountered, overtime anticipated and the reasons for each, accomplishments for the past week and plans for the coming week, hurdles overcome and anticipated, and the status vis-à-vis goals for the season would provide a tracking and monitoring tool. These reports would also force coordinators and supervisors to justify decisions for overtime etc. to their managers as well as keep their superiors informed of the work being achieved. These reports should be of a narrative and analytical nature, not just statistical; they should explain why decisions were made or why plans stated in the previous report were not accomplished.”
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 20 (Supervisory overtime), 21 (Staff overtime), 22, 23, 25, 26 (Staffing), 27-28, (Training),
Staffing requirements are being addressed but are not yet complete. A Project Coordinator Staffing has been hired (August 2007) to focus on work force planning, required staff qualifications, Master Assignment Board (MAB), summer students, etc. A Project Coordinator Health and Safety and Training has been hired (October 2007) to focus on identifying required skill sets and related deficiencies. Many new positions involved redeployment of existing resources, not creation of new positions.
In the original report, it was noted that the average employee in Surface Operations made more than $8,000 per year in overtime[3]. With more than $6 million in overtime costs, we recommended that staffing levels be reviewed to ensure adequate service levels while striking a balance between overtime and the number of full time staff to be carried during slower seasons. This review will form part of the Operations Planning Framework project, in terms of determining the basic staffing levels required for each activity by month. The Roads Manager is currently investigating continued overtime incurred by some supervisory staff to determine the cause and to develop policies and procedures to ensure consistencies.
Planning, coordination and delivery of management training to managers and supervisors has improved in particular for rural roads and urban roads. However, training has largely focused on management and supervisory skills with less on standards and techniques. Job descriptions are being revised, with union cooperation, to include required specific equipment qualifications no longer just based on seniority. A Crew Leader and Maintenance Coordinator comprehensive training program is near finalization. The new Project Coordinator Training will be responsible for maintaining an inventory of training received by each employee.
Management indicated that there were improved relations with the union as evidenced by progress made in various areas, specifically MAB, job qualifications and training requirements. Implementation of fluctuating pay changes has resulted in reduced grievances and likely improved morale and reduced absenteeism.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 30-34.
Advances have been made with the TREE program and other Council supported initiatives. However, some initiatives identified in approved strategy documents can only be implemented pending Council approval to the Forestry budget. Tree trimming by Hydro crews continues to weaken the structural integrity of older trees. Costs of systematically stabilizing vulnerable trees now (e.g. cabling, pruning, injections) will not only be more cost effective than emergency removal following storms, but will also prolong the life of the trees and aesthetics of the neighbourhoods and minimize potential costs to the City through property or personal damages.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 35-39. We are satisfied with the progress of Surface Operations Branch in these areas. Some recommendations requiring attention by Fleet Services will require continued monitoring, via the follow-up audit of Fleet Services.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 10 (Accomplishment units), 14 (Activity sheets), 15 (Data entry in the field),
As noted above, a Program Coordinator Business Services and Performance Measurement was hired in the summer of 2007. Initially “performance measurement indicators” have focused on responsiveness to the 311 notifications and variances in budgets. As this position evolves and the Operational Planning Framework project advances the development of accomplishment units, it is intended that more data will be captured and the reports will advance to more levels of detail and usefulness such as measuring activities and accomplishment units.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 6 (Proactive planning), 8 (Approach to work), 9 (Notifications).
Operational planning has started. For example, analysis has been conducted to determine crew requirements including equipment and number of staff for various activities as well as the core area now has dedicated crews for beats (routine maintenance) and other for notifications (311 system and complaints). Roads Services Area Managers are now supported by Operations Technicians (new positions) in the field to provide operational planning support. As part of the realignment of the Master Assignment Board (assignment of winter and summer crews), the sizes of crews have been adjusted taking into account the type of work, legislative requirements (e.g. traffic control) and rural/suburban requirements.
However, while some beats have been developed, the Branch is still too reactive and does not take a consistent proactive approach to routine maintenance. Work prioritization continues to be determined largely based on public complaints and requests for service records (311). In particular the prioritization of work within the pre-amalgamation City of Ottawa area is neither described in writing nor is the conduct of work neither recorded, measured nor assessed against performance benchmarks.
Should the Branch continue to operate under a work planning model that simply responds to ‘hot spots’ and public demands, they will be unable to address Council on risk management, cost effectiveness of service delivery or on optimization opportunities for service delivery.
Refer to section 3 for additional information.
Several recommendations on this topic were inter-related, specifically recommendations 7 (Standard operating procedures), 4(Quality assurance function) and 29 (Road patrols).
The Branch continues to show limited advancement in the development of maintenance standards, standard operating procedures, quality assurance programs. While longer term plans provide for the development of best practices and maintenance standards, the follow-up audit identified that senior Branch staff were unable to provide details on plans for development of standard operating procedures, that the Branch had very few professionals able to guide the development of standards development and those qualified professionals who remain were offered such limited work scope and authority as to make their ability to assist in standards development and implementation doubtful.
In the original report, it was recommended that Road patrols be reinstated to at least the levels specified in provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMSMH) in order to ensure the preservation of capital investments through both routine and preventive maintenance, as well as the safety of municipal roads. No progress has been made in this area, although the Branch has indicated they will review this in 2008.
In addition, the original audit recommended “that the Branch create a Quality Assurance function for Roads…to provide checks and balances to the quality of road maintenance including appropriate preventive maintenance.” Management disagreed with this recommendation. Recent discussions with management indicate that they are now willing to investigate this recommendation to determine the best approach to meet the intention of this recommendation.
Refer to section 3 for additional information.
Several recommendations on this topic were
inter-related, specifically recommendations 11 (Bottom-up/zero based budget),
12- 13 (Budget freeze).
When we started the original audit, the most frequent complaint from Surface Operations Branch was inadequate funding. However, upon review we believed that funds, especially within the Roads group, were likely adequate but needed to be better managed. At the time, it was not possible to assess properly due to a lack of sufficient supporting financial systems. Based on our recent review, we believe that the development and implementation of required financial and other reporting systems, which will enable management to prudently manage the Surface Operations budget, are underway.
Refer to Section 3 for additional information.
As mentioned above, the implementation of most of our recommendations is progressing well. Management’s acknowledgement of many of the issues and the commencement of the Strategic Alignment Initiative prior to the audit contributed to the progress to date. With other areas now progressing towards stabilization, it is time to devote more attention to operational planning to ensure consistent, efficient and effective approaches to work. That is, the inter-related areas of standards, standard operating procedures, operational planning and independent monitoring should be given increased focus and priority.
The Technical Services division was formed in part to provide a strategic approach to work. This includes operational planning, training and operations research. Other functions include administrative services, performance measurement and stakeholder relations. To date the Manager Technical Services Division has focussed largely on structuring and hiring for the group. Great strides have been made by this group, with a focus largely on systems, reporting and strategic initiatives.
While some standards were adopted by Council several years ago, based in part on the provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMSMH) they are not consistently being met. As noted in the initial audit, there are erratic work procedures and approaches across the City resulting in inefficiencies and inconsistent work quality. These continue to plague the Branch. This is due in part to a lack of standard operating procedures which clearly state how and when to do work. In addition, while work is monitored on a day-to-day basis by supervisory staff to some extent, the monitoring and acceptable quality varies across the City. Supervisors are occupied with the day-to-day tactical work requirements and, given those priorities, cannot be focussed on the larger picture of ensuring efficiencies and effectiveness without guidance and approved procedures. There is no independent monitoring through road patrols or a quality assurance function.
As shown in the schematic below, in order to
effectively achieve acceptable standards of work, standard operating procedures
must be developed, documented and communicated. These procedures will then
drive the operational planning requirements.
Then independent monitoring must be conducted to identify problems which
may require refinement of procedures, training or planning. This monitoring
must be done independently of the day-to-day supervisors who have a different
focus. We believe this monitoring function should rest with the Technical
Services division. To achieve
efficiencies, it could also perform some of the road patrol legislative
requirements (with the balance conducted by Roads supervisory staff).
Strategic
vs. Tactical Work Approach
As stated in the original report, “Area Managers, Zone Supervisors and Maintenance Coordinators typically plan work in their own manner, without the benefit of standard forms/work orders, standard approaches to determining priorities, etc. In the absence of this, some Zone Supervisors and some Maintenance Coordinators have designed their own planning process for tracking purposes but not to the level required.
‘The creation of a quality assurance function for roads would assist the Branch in moving towards improvements. This should be a separate group which provides checks and balances to the quality of road maintenance including appropriate preventive maintenance. The qualifications of this group should included technical certification and training to address all areas of expertise under review; members of this group should have a sound knowledge of new technologies re asphalt/road repairs, snow removal, ice treatment etc. The group should have the authority to issue work orders and receive confirmation of follow-up/completion, inspect repairs, raise issues to a higher level, provide input to the proposed standard operating procedures, etc. This group should report directly to either the Director Surface Operations or Manager Technical Services, and act to verify City compliance with existing laws, regulations, by-laws (standards, Official Plan, etc.) and should be outside CUPE 503 – to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Finally, this group should develop a strong working relationship with the Infrastructures group and provide input in to major infrastructure projects.”
We believe that Surface Operations has made significant progress since the fieldwork phase of the original audit during the summer of 2006. While full implementation of some significant and extensive recommendations (e.g. operational planning and zero based budgeting) are not yet complete, some of the basic fundamentals are now in place to facilitate continued progression towards desired results.
There continue to be many areas requiring improvement. It is premature to determine the full benefit which will be obtained by implementation of the new management framework, financial and other reporting systems and reports, strategic plans which address enterprise-wide risk management, standard operating procedures and operational planning as well as the Strategic Alignment Initiative. However, we are cautiously optimistic that the Branch has rounded the corner and is heading in the right direction.
In the original 2006 audit, we recommended:
12. That the Surface Operations budget not be increased until Surface Operations has a good understanding of their financial situation.
13. That the Surface Operations budget not be increased while the Branch refines the manner it which it formulates its budget requests and redirects existing funds to programs which do have a strategic plan and related specific budget , specifically the Forestry program.
As Surface Operations now has a better understanding of their financial situation, we recommend that Council should evaluate any 2008 budget requests based on their own merit.
Overall Management Comment
Management
agrees with the recommendation.
As
noted in the Auditor General’s letter and report dated November 22, 2007, the
report reflects the discussion between both parties at the November 15, 2007
meeting.
We
would like to thank the Auditor General’s office for their strong endorsement
of the significant progress achieved to date and alignment by the branch
relating to the Auditor General’s recommendations.
[1] The City has
jurisdiction and manages 5200 km of roads, 37 kilometres of Transitway, 200,000
right-of-way trees, and 825 parks covering 3220 hectares. The primary task of
the Surface Operations Branch is to carry out the maintenance, operations and
stewardship of these assets. Other
operating groups have been charged with the responsibility to maintain vehicles,
equipment and facility assets related to Surface Operations.
[2] MOTION NO. 14/3 - Moved by Councilor S. Desroches Seconded by Councilor P. Feltmate WHEREAS the City’s Surface Operations provides
an important service to the citizens of Ottawa; WHEREAS the OAG’s 2006 annual
report stated in recommendation 12 “that the Surface Operations branches budget
not be increased until the Branch has a good understanding of their financial
situation.” WHEREAS City Council should have all the relevant information in
advance of the 2008 City of Ottawa Budget approvals process;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council Audit Working Group report back to City Council
prior to the 2008 Budget process on the progress made by the Surface Operations
Branch in implementing all of the OAG’s recommendations, and include an
assessment by the OAG.
[3] This excludes shift
premiums, on call premiums, etc.