We consulted with the audited agencies and considered their views when reaching our conclusions. The agencies' full responses are in Appendix A.

This year's recommendations

The deep-dive departments could not always demonstrate that the labour hire engagements we reviewed got value for money. This is because there were gaps in departments' documentation about how they manage labour hire workers and the work that labour hire workers complete.

Covered in this section:

The deep-dive departments could not always demonstrate that they got value for money in the professional services engagements we reviewed. 

This is because they could not always show that they actively managed their contracts or used the deliverables from these engagements.

Covered in this section:

Departments' procurement and reporting processes for using contractors and consultants are in line with the guidelines for professional services and labour hire, the VGPB's procurement framework and FRD 22. 

This means they are set up well to comply with these requirements. However, public transparency about departments' total spending on contractors and consultants could be improved if departments included contractor spending in their annual reports.

Covered in this section:

We made 3 recommendations to address our findings. The relevant agencies have accepted them in principle or in full.

What we examined

Our audit followed 2 lines of inquiry: 

1. Do departments' processes to procure, manage and report on contractor and consultant engagements comply with relevant guidelines?

2. Can departments demonstrate that their use of contractors and consultants achieves value for money?

To answer these questions, we examined:

Download a PDF copy of Appendix C: Review scope and method.