Status: AVAILABLE |
In order to read or download Brookfield Relocation Manual EBooks Download ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
Download Now! |
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
| ✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account. |
| ✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use) |
| ✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied. |
| ✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers |
Managing Program Efficiency Successful mobility programs are strategic to the business and attractive to employees while meeting bottom line goals. Leveraging a Global Supply Chain A well-coordinated and fully integrated supplier network is essential to ensure seamless and consistent employee experience. Ensuring a Superior Employee Experience A quality, seamless employee experience has a direct effect on the employee’s engagement, performance and retention. Services Employer Services Mobility Program Administration Aligning the service delivery model to accommodate specific program requirements is crucial to a successful mobility program management. Financial Administration We have the infrastructure necessary to provide innovative solutions for processing, disbursing and reporting mobility related spend. Compensation Administration Managing relocating employees’ expenses gives us a unique ability to streamline compensation delivery, ensure compliance and accurate reporting for tax returns. Supply Chain Management We maximize our clients’ investment by leveraging purchasing power, driving service excellence and compliance throughout the supply chain. Talent Mobility Consulting We partner with clients to help them strategically optimize and implement their mobility programs. Group Move Management We assist our clients with assessing the impact of group moves and deliver solutions minimizing business disruption and potential loss of talent. Program Analytics As an end-to-end service provider, we are in a unique position to provide management reporting, analytics and recommendations based on clients’ specific program criteria. Relocating Employee Services International Assignment Lifecycle Our mobility Consultant will manage the entire relocation lifecycle from pre-decision assessment to repatriation and reintegration.
http://am-assets.com/aom/magnolia/userfiles/a-d-s-pq20-manual.xml
Domestic Relocation Lifecycle Our mobility Consultant will manage the entire relocation lifecycle from the pre-decision assessment through the home sale and home finding support. Insights Talent Mobility Insights Articles at the intersection of Talent and Mobility, demonstrating the power of mobility and its potential to drive business performance. Talent Mobility Trends Market survey-based features profiling a strategic shift in organizations’ thinking about how talent mobility is managed. Success Stories Partnering with our clients to optimally deploy their talent and transform employee experience is at the heart of everything we do. Executive Perspectives BGRS’s leaders perspectives about key mobility trends and the solutions we develop to support our clients’ talent mobility programs. Our Difference About Us We partner with our clients to craft and implement talent mobility strategies that empower them to attract, retain and develop top performers. Leadership Brief biographies of BGRS’s management. News BGRS news, announcements, events and media coverage. Global Giving We recognize the power of giving back - we strive to make a positive difference for the communities where we work and live.Search the database for open roles, including the following in-demand positions. Search the database for open roles. Learn More Learn More By continuing to browse this website you agree to our use of cookies. Please view our Privacy Policy for more information. Accept Reject Privacy Policy. Whether you are relocating locally, domestically or internationally, we are here to assist you with your relocation and travel needs. Our Household Goods Relocation Services Team is composed of a number of different offices that work together to ensure that your relocation experience is a smooth and uneventful one.
http://ekvatorbl.com/userfiles/a-design-manual-shirl-brainard.xml
Our Household Goods Relocation Services Team consists of theThe RCC assigns a Move Management Consultant to coordinate your moving dates and arrangements and provides you with any consultation required throughout the relocation process. After the completion of the move, the RCC is also responsible for assisting you (all except commissioned officers) in finalizing your travel voucher so that you can be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred. Commissioned Officers initiate the travel voucher process by contacting their RSC. The OFM reviews the travel voucher package for accuracy and completeness. Once the review is completed, then you will receive payment for your travel expenses. We service COs associated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to Chapter 9 of NIH Policy 1500-09-01 General Rules and Eligibility Conditions, Section B of Manual Issuance 1500 () household goods include: All personal property associated with the home and all personal effects belonging to an employee and the immediate family when shipment begins, and which can be legally accepted and transported as household goods by an authorized commercial carrier in accordance with the rules and regulations established or approved by an appropriate Federal or State regulatory authority, except the items excluded that follow. Snowmobiles and vehicles with two or three wheels may be shipped as household goods. The following are excluded:Employees and their families are advised to personally transport these articles. The items in a) above may be included as household goods at the discretion of the institute with prior written approval. The RCC Processing Procedures for Civilians and Other Appointed Individuals are written in a guide to help you understand the process. It also includes information on evaluation forms.
http://eco-region31.ru/dct2224-manual-pdf
Commissioned Officers coverage for relocation allowances can be referenced in the Joint Federal Travel Regulations web site as follows. The Traveler's Guide can also assist you with your travel needs.The RCC's Processing Procedures for Civilians and Other Appointed Individuals are written in a guide to help you understand the process. It also includes information on evaluation forms and the travel advance process.NIH Travel and Shipping of Household Goods Entitlements (for Employees) is a guide that will assist you. Some of this information includes general rules and eligibility concerns (including persons covered and persons excluded), definitions, policy (for new appointees and transferees), employee liability, advances of funds and lots of other valuable information. In addition to the NIH's Policy, the Traveler's Guide can also assist you with your travel needs.The RCC's Processing Procedures for Non-FTEs are written in a guide to help you understand the process.Relocation entitlements for Non-FTEs vary. Non-FTEs may qualify for up to four entitlements. These includeThe Traveler's Guide can also assist you with your travel needs. Please note that it may take up to 5 days for your employer to authorize your file. You will find a wide variety of resources to ensure that your relocation goes smoothly, including on-line Advance Request, on-line Itemized Expenditure Summary, forms, publications and financial details related to your relocation. We suggest you read the FAQ section to answer the most common questions, check out your employers relocation policy or directive as well as BGRS Publications. We are proud to be the partner of choice for many of the world s most recognizable brands, including 35 of the Fortune 100 as well as the governments of the United States and Canada. Our diverse client portfolio represents a variety of industry segments. BGRS is all about mobility.
http://kelleyharper.com/images/cannon-10456gf-manual.pdf
Come join one of the leading companies in global talent mobility, partnering with some of the largest organizations in the world to keep their employees on the move. We are committed to keeping our own talent on a career growth trajectory by fostering an engaging environment with development opportunities that create success for our clients and you. We support our employees by offering a flexible, innovative environment that allows them to focus on their clients and careers. We look forward to you joining our team and experiencing the power of what talent mobility can achieve. Role Overview The Finance Coordinator will audit and process disbursements for Brookfield Global Resources ensuring propriety of the disbursements and safeguarding corporate assets from unauthorized use of funds. This position will also handle customer inquires (internal and external) regarding disbursements in an expedient and professional manner. What You'll Be Doing Manage the process for manual billing, reconciliation, billed and unbilled adjustment entries etc. Coordinate with Cash Application team for supplier remittance and organize manual billing. Perform peer audits and report any differences to Team leads Processing journals and adjustments. Maintain Billing Accuracy at 100 Attend and complete the required process and other trainings. Show a proactive and can do attitude to work Helps other team members, shares knowledge and learning Builds positive, close and effective working relationships with Operations and other departments Understand the financial Impact while processing the billing. Employment may be subject to additional background checks, drug testing and processing.
Alternatively, you can apply to this job using your profile on one of the following sites:, Other details Department: Early applicants have highInsights will be displayed onceLogin here Register now or apply through Apply without registration Apply with Linkedin Apply with Google Apply with Facebook Sign-in with Google Sign-in with Linkedin Sign-in with Facebook. System (APARS). Managers need to make every effort toCenter. Be sure to allow sufficient time for your request toOfficers Headquarters Postal Service Intranet at clickThan 24 Hours With or Without Lodging On the last dayFor example: if you travelMinneapolis, MN, for a morning meeting and then travel onLouis for the entire day. Per diem rates are set to reflect this difference. How do you handle combining official travel with annual leave. What about nonworkdays. Are you eligible for per diem then. This sectionOfficial Travel Status Status High-Cost Areas We will also incorporate the revisionsHowever, should the approving official have reason to question the claim, the claimant must provide evidence that supportsCoconino County Center and Ordnance Test Station, China Lake (see Santa Monica) Fairfax in Virginia; and the counties of Montgomery and Prince George's County in Maryland) (see also Maryland and. Virginia) Raton, Delray Beach, Jupiter, Palm. Beach Gardens, Palm Beach Shores. Singer Island, and West Palm Beach) Group (Detachment BRAVO), and Ramsey County Station, Yorktown) 4 Rico, or U.S. possessions, per diem for you is allowed at the rate published in Appendix A of Handbook F-15, Travel and Relocation. Per diem for yourHowever, you mustIf you do not average 300 miles per day, you mustThe limitationWhen computingTuesday, October 9, 2001, to transmit a statement ofCenters Manual (IMM) and Publication 51, International Postal. Rates and Fees, are revised to show the reduction (from 66Express Mail (EMS) items that are mailed to Belarus.
www.kappapma.com/userfiles/files/Digital-Cameras-With-Manual-Exposure-Controls.pdf
We will also incorporate the revision into theGroup Weight LimitParcel Post. Rate Group Parcel Post. Rate Group Max. Weight. Limit (lb.) Insurance. IndemnityGroup Manual (IMM) 297.4, the Postal Service hereby makesEvery item must conform toQualifying Mail. Service requirements. Qualifying Mail. Service according to the instructions the Postal. Service provides. Qualifying Mail according to the rate chart in. Exhibit 1. Not. OverBritain Manual (IMM) 297.4, the Postal Service hereby makesEvery item must conform toQualifying Mail. Service. Service according to instructions the Postal Service provides. Kingdom Not. OverBritain. Audit topics are selected based on their significance. While the Office may comment on policy implementation in a performance audit, it does not comment on the merits of a policy. They are conducted by qualified auditors who To meet these goals, the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) began as a pilot program in April 1999 and became a permanent program in June 2002 for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the federal public service. Relocation services include Moving services for household goods and effects are provided at an additional cost under separate contracts, and are not included in this estimate; they are also not part of the scope of this audit. Each organization also uses its own processes to verify expense claims. Different service models also apply, depending on the transferred person’s employer. For example, CAF members are provided with face-to-face services at locations across the country, while employees of the RCMP and the federal public service receive services by telephone, fax, or e-mail. Our 2006 audit concluded that the 2004 contracts had not been tendered in a fair and equitable manner, because inaccurate information had been included in the request for proposals (RFP).
Furthermore, although Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) followed its established processes, the steps it took were not sufficient to ensure that all bidders in the tendering process had access to correct and complete information. Accordingly, the tendering process did not adhere to the government policy requirement for fair and transparent competitive tendering or to the guidance set out in the PWGSC Supply Manual. In May 2007, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts accepted our overall conclusions, stating that the Committee was profoundly dissatisfied with the manner in which the contracts had been issued and the way in which the departments involved had responded to the subsequent problems. The Committee endorsed our recommendations and made nine recommendations of its own. The government accepted the recommendations and implemented an action plan for the 2009 procurement process. PWGSC subsequently cancelled the 2002 contracts and awarded new contracts in November 2004. In May 2005, the awarding of the 2004 contracts was also challenged, and the CITT ruled that PWGSC had compared two components of a losing bidder’s proposal inappropriately. In 2006, the ruling on the 2004 contract was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. Recently, the Superior Court of Ontario decided that the 2004 procurement process had been biased in favour of Royal LePage.The Committee also recommended that the contracts be tendered through a fair, equitable, and competitive bidding process. Only one bid was received in response to the RFP—from the incumbent, renamed as Brookfield Global Relocation Services Limited (formerly Royal LePage Relocation Services), and was evaluated as compliant. PWGSC was responsible for ensuring that the Government Contracts Regulations were observed and that due process was followed in accordance with the Treasury Board Contracting Policy.
It was also responsible for providing procurement-related advice, guidance, and support to IRP client organizations; the development of the procurement strategy; the basis and method of payment; the review and approval of solicitation and evaluation documents; the issuing of the RFP; the financial evaluation of bids; and the awarding of the contract. The Secretariat was also responsible for providing guidance and advice to federal departments on the application of the relocation directive and policies. A working group was established in the fall of 2007, with representatives from all four organizations, with a mandate to ensure that the process would be timely, open, fair, and transparent. An Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Steering Committee was formed in March 2008, and composed of the responsible ADMs from each organization. It was chaired by PWGSC. The committee’s objectives included ensuring that timelines would be met and providing strategic direction. The committee identified the need for a Director General Management Board to ensure that departmental responsibilities such as approving the requirements and the evaluation criteria, and providing direction to the working group were met. We examined whether the decisions and actions of the organizations facilitated access and encouraged competition. An option exists to extend the 2009 contract; such an extension would change the start date of the next contract. We did not audit the process for the next contract. More details about the audit objective, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this chapter. It can be found at paragraph 2.61. However, we found that the decisions and actions by officials were reactive and were not sufficient to remove some barriers to competition. Taken cumulatively, these decisions and actions did not facilitate access and encourage competition, which resulted in limiting the response to one service provider.
www.cpfledlighting.com/userfiles/file/Digital-Concepts-4_1-Megapixel-Camera-Manual.pdf
We found no evidence to suggest that this was done intentionally. An appraisal of alternatives should take place and should continue throughout the procurement process. This is where a decision is made whether to use a competitive process or to sole-source. A procurement plan then sets out how the selected procurement strategy will be carried out. According to the Supply Manual, the plan should be completed before any significant procurement actions are performed. Key elements required in the plan include the method of supply, evaluation procedures and method of selection, and identification of risk factors. We examined whether PWGSC had developed and approved an appropriate procurement plan and used it throughout the process. PWGSC’s procurement plan was approved on 21 May 2009, three weeks after the request for proposals (RFP) had been issued and all the key decisions required to support the RFP had been made. For example, PWGSC established timelines at the outset of the process, and hired a fairness monitor to attest to the fairness of the procurement process. Other planning elements either did not occur or took place in reaction to situations as they arose. For example, we found no evidence that an assessment of the contractual risks or a risk management framework had been completed. Furthermore, the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Steering Committee was not put in place until six months after work began, in reaction to the inability of the interdepartmental working group to accomplish its tasks. Therefore, PWGSC did not comply with its Supply Manual requirements to have a plan. We examined whether the organizations’ decisions and actions that led to the decision to procure the services through a single contract facilitated access and encouraged competition. The RFI process included presentations from industry and generated 400 comments from four firms. Of these, 350 were from the incumbent.
In the remaining comments, domestic industry representatives identified concerns with having only one contract for the provision of services, as one contract would not foster competition or growth of the market. In response to this feedback, the contract authority sought advice from PWGSC’s Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (OSME) on barriers to small or medium-sized enterprises’ ability to compete successfully in this procurement. According to OSME, the two latter contracts, with their smaller relocation volumes, would allow for less-stringent evaluation criteria and requirements, thereby providing small and medium-sized enterprises an opportunity to compete. The contract authority indicated to OSME that its advice was consistent with the feedback it had obtained from suppliers in response to the RFI. We found that this analysis and the resulting decision occurred in reaction to the feedback received from industry a year after the procurement process had already begun. Consistent with OSME’s recommendation, this analysis led to a recommendation from the contract authority to award three separate contracts to three different suppliers—an option that PWGSC thought would promote competition, enhance the development of the Canadian relocation industry, and provide a resource of experienced service providers that could be relied on in the event of a corporate failure of one of the contractors. The analysis also mentioned that the extent of potential international participation in the competitive procurement process was unknown. The Committee approved this recommendation because it would lead to a better price, offer efficient processes, and provide for the consistent application of policy elements common to all departments, while being able to support the unique needs of National Defence and the RCMP. In arriving at this decision, the Committee did consider the disadvantages of awarding a single contract.
These included reduced domestic competition, the risk that no service provider would be able to take on the contract in the event of contract default, and the likelihood of industry discontent. Given the likelihood that there would be little domestic competition, officials were of the view that a single contract could attract some interest from international firms and elicit more than one bid. While officials took some steps to attract international bids, they were also aware that legislated security and privacy requirements could be particularly challenging to international firms, especially given the limited time to transition to a new contract. No bids were received from international firms. After the contract award, PWGSC received feedback from one international firm, setting out why it had not submitted a bid. The firm stated that several factors had affected its decision not to participate, including legislated security requirements related to personnel and information technology, the requirement for onsite consultation services, and the short transition period. They were also aware that domestic competition would be limited if solicitation requirements were too demanding. We found that, while the decision to award a single contract was in compliance with procurement policy and guidelines, the decision did not facilitate domestic competition or attract international bids. In our opinion, this was an important decision that influenced the rest of the competition. Meeting the dates agreed to by both the client organizations and PWGSC ensures that sufficient time is allocated to the production and review of key documents before their approval and release, and that sufficient time remains after contract award for a smooth transition to the new contract. For the 2009 IRP procurement, we examined the planned key milestones and compared them with the actual completion dates.
These milestone dates were: release of the RFI in March 2008, release of the RFP in September 2008, and contract award by June 2009. A contract award in June would have provided the winning firm with six months to organize and develop its infrastructure, and to recruit and train the staff required to deliver relocation services, before beginning work on 1 December 2009. As the procurement process unfolded, the organizations struggled to work together effectively to make decisions and produce the required documentation. As a result, the key milestone dates were missed and the RFP was issued in April 2009, seven months after its originally planned release date of September 2008 ( Exhibit 2.1 ). The organizations realized that, as a result of their delays, a new contractor would not have enough time to establish operations. Having proposed a six-month transition period in the RFI, the organizations reduced it to three months in the RFP. However, the transition period in the RFP still included many of the same deliverables and deadlines as had been included in the RFI. This meant that the winning bidder would have three fewer months to prepare ( Exhibit 2.2 ). However, the RFP had additional requirements not identified in RFI Some figures have been converted from months to a number of days based on a 30-day month. During this ramp-up period, the RFP allowed that the contractor might not have reached full capacity and might not be able to provide all relocation and associated services to be conducted under the contract. Therefore, the Crown reserved the right, during this period, to arrange for alternative relocation services by other means, such as in-house services or the use of third-party service providers, until satisfied that the contractor had reached and demonstrated full capacity. Furthermore, the RFP did not clearly define what deliverables under the transition period could be postponed to the ramp-up period.
In our opinion, the RFP provided non-incumbent bidders with an unreasonable timeline for them to put the infrastructure in place in order to deliver the required services. Any firm wanting to bid was required to demonstrate that it had provided relocation services for a minimum of 500 moves annually for the preceding three years. This provision was aimed at allowing small and medium-sized companies to submit bids. However, the RFP also required bidders to demonstrate that they had the experience in delivering the services required by one contract, as opposed to demonstrating that they would be capable of performing these services in the future. This meant that, while small and medium enterprises could meet the mandatory requirement of providing relocation services for a minimum of 500 moves, they would be at a disadvantage compared to the incumbent, which had been delivering relocations on a large scale. For example, one of the rated criteria gave full points to a bidder that could demonstrate that it had provided relocation services for 17,500 moves per year. Another gave full points to bidders that had delivered services for clients with more than 100,000 employees. Given these criteria, small and medium enterprises would not have been able to demonstrate sufficient current experience to obtain the maximum number of points. The RFP stated that, if a new contractor were selected, it would assume full responsibility for all open files initiated by the incumbent under the previous contracts, at various stages of completion. This requirement had not been identified in the RFI. We examined client organizations’ estimates of the number of files to be transferred. The contractor would be compensated a portion of the administration fee for all files transferred to the new contract. In response to a question asked at the RFP stage, officials indicated that the number of open files was based on annual file volumes.
We found no evidence of substantive work being carried out at the time of the RFP to determine this estimate or if it was reasonable. We were told that the incumbent and the organizations made an effort to close files after the contract award date and before the service effective date. In the end, the actual number of open files transferred for all client organizations was about 7,000. Having a reasonable estimate of open files to be transferred would have helped non-incumbent bidders submit a competitively priced bid. Each of these transferred files would have required further work by the contractor. Bidders would have had to decide how or whether to incorporate the cost of this work into the amount to be recovered through the administration fee. The subject of inaccurate business volumes in the previous IRP procurements was a significant factor in the Superior Court of Ontario judgment against the Crown. This is important, because historical business volumes were used in the 2009 RFP to calculate the bidder’s total price. The incumbent contractor provided the data to client organizations, which then verified and certified the historical business volumes before their inclusion in the RFP. We asked the organizations how they had verified and certified the historical business volumes. We found that, while the RCMP had a clear and reasonable statement of its methodology, it did not complete some of its verification process. National Defence and the Secretariat were unable to provide us with evidence of the steps they took to verify business volumes; we therefore cannot conclude how National Defence and the Secretariat ensured the accuracy of the data. Evaluation criteria are the benchmarks against which vendors’ bids are measured. To ensure that all bidders are treated equally, officials review and rate bids against published criteria, to determine whether a bid meets the requirements and to rate those bids for their overall scores.