Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Management Framework

This requirement is for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (DIAND)

This requirement is open only to the Supply Arrangement Holders who qualified under the Environmental Consulting Services Supply Arrangement.

The following SA Holders have been invited to submit a proposal.

AMEC America Limited
MacDonald Environmental Science Ltd.
Smith & Associates  Ecological Research Ltd.
Water Matters
University of  New Brunswick
Golder Associates Ltd.
Zajdlik & Associates
Summit Environmental Consultants Inc.
BluMetric Environmental Inc. 
Flat River Consulting
Nexus Coastal Resource Management
Morrison Hershfield Ltd.
SENES Consulting Ltd.
MWH Canada, Inc.
LVM Inc.
Dillon Consulting Ltd.
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Cordillera
Bowfin Environmental Consulting Inc.
Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.
JASCO Research Limited
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
DPRA Canada Incorporated
Arctic Biological Consultants
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.
Ecometrix Incorporated
Pottinger Gaherty Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd.
Biogenie a division of Englobe Corp.
Polster Environmental Services Ltd.
ESSA Technologies
IMG-Golder Corporation
Nunavik Geomatics Inc.
Sila Remediation Inc.
Stantec-Artic Aboriginal Partnership Group Joint Venture
KGS Group Consulting Engineers
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc.
North/South Consultants Inc.
ARKTIS Solutions Inc.
ARKTIS Piusitippaa Inc.

Description of the requirement:
PROJECT TITLE

Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Management Framework
 BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment (BREA) is:

“to help ensure governments, Inuvialuit, and industry are better prepared for oil and gas exploration and development in the offshore by: 1) filling regional information and data gaps related to offshore oil and gas activities; and 2) supporting effective and efficient regulatory decision making by providing the necessary data and information to all stakeholders.”

Cumulative effects assessment is an existing required component of regulatory applications and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments.  However, resource managers have indicated that the current methods to assess cumulative effects are inadequate.

Adoption by proponents, regulators and resource managers of a consistent framework or method for assessing and monitoring cumulative effects to address regional and other concerns could result in regulatory efficiencies by creating alignment on information and process requirements.

This study will support the BREA Cumulative Effects Working Group in that it will develop a consistent method for managing cumulative effects in the Canadian Beaufort Sea region, and address regional concerns based on identified Valued Components and their associated stressors.  It will also complement the establishment of a baseline understanding of environmental conditions in the offshore Beaufort Sea through the BREA Research program.  Additionally, it could complement work conducted under the Northwest Territories Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program on a knowledge gathering exercise to assess cumulative effects.

The study will need to consider related work previously undertaken in the Beaufort Region including Beaufort Sea Strategic Plan of Action (BSStRPA), Beaufort Sea Integrated Oceans Management Plan (IOMP), Beaufort Environmental Monitoring Program (BEMP), and Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Program (BREAM). Also to be considered are data mining and gaps work published by Environmental Studies Research Fund (ESRF) and ArcticNet. 

The BREA Cumulative Effects working group have outlined the elements of the framework that would be developed as part of this contract, as described in the scope of work below. The framework elements include:

1.	Identifying Valued Components (VC) and VC objectives for the Inuvialuit Settlement Region
2.	Identifying activities and development scenarios (already completed and available online: www.BeaufortREA.ca)
3.	Defining linkages between activities and VCs and associated uncertainty
4.	Defining VC management indicators and monitoring methods
5.	Identifying initial VC  management indicator objectives 
6.	Developing tiered triggers for each indicator
7.	Defining impact management and stressor monitoring strategies for each trigger point
8.	Identifying linkages to overall effects monitoring system for each VC and indicator
Minutes and materials from past BREA Cumulative Effects working group meetings will be provided to the contractor following the project initiation meeting. 

Study Area

The study area is the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.
OBJECTIVES

On behalf of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and the Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment, the Contractor will develop a regionally-based Cumulative Effects Management (CEM) framework which includes a pilot study using a small number of Valued Components (VC). The framework will identify linkages and sensitivities between stressors and VCs, and establish a methodology for measuring change in VCs relative to baseline conditions.

This framework will provide consistency of approach in project assessments and a better means for regulators to ensure that cumulative effects are being properly addressed.  The study will focus on methods or tools to support efficient decision making.  The goal is to introduce a simple framework that will be implemented, tested, and refined through decision making.  The success of the study will be demonstrated by developing a framework that could potentially be implemented by the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the National Energy Board for upcoming offshore oil and gas applications.

The development of a regional framework prior to project-specific applications will enable all stakeholders (Inuvialuit, government and regulators, and industry) to participate and support the process for identification of VCs, stressors, and pre-determined impact management measures to be included in cumulative effects assessment.
SCOPE OF WORK 

The development of a regional framework will be informed by the results of two important streams of work. The first is the review and analysis of existing cumulative effects and environmental assessment literature along with local information and plans to assist in developing the various aspects of the framework as per the scope of work below. The second is the engagement of stakeholders (in the form of workshops or meetings) at key decision points throughout the development of the framework. The BREA Cumulative Effects working group will also work closely with the contractor to ensure that the framework meets the needs of various stakeholder groups. 

The organizations listed below represent key stakeholders that will be included in the development of the Cumulative Effects Management framework. Additional stakeholders may be included in the work where it is deemed relevant by the consultant or technical authority.

•	Industry operators and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
•	Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC)
•	 National Energy Board (NEB)
•	Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)
•	Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC)
•	Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC)
•	Wildlife Management Advisory Council (WMAC)
•	Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)
•	Government of Yukon (YG)
•	Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)
•	Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
•	Environment Canada (EC)
•	Parks Canada (PC)

The Contractor will perform the following tasks to the satisfaction of the Departmental Representative: 

 TASKS

Task 4.1 consists of a series of subtasks (a – e) that will be called up as a group with Tasks 4.2 and 4.3.  Upon completion of each subtask in 4.1, the contractor will prepare a technical memo that describes the findings of each task. These technical memos will be provided to the technical authority in draft format. The Technical Authority will coordinate provision of feedback from stakeholders on the technical memos and provide input to the contractor.

a. Develop a short list of candidate Valued Components (VCs) and VC management objectives. 

An initial list will be developed that includes approximately 20 VCs. In developing the list, the contractor will consider the following selection criteria:
-	Highest potential for cumulative effects (risk-based)
-	Potentially significant or recurring issues in a regulatory environment
-	Highest social value
-	Potential for applying mitigation measures 
-	Clearly defined linkages to BREA development scenario
-	Link to Community Conservation Plans or management plans
-	Demonstrated availability of baseline information

In reporting on the initial VC list, the contractor will include a ranked list of the Valued Components with rationale for selection based on the criteria above. 

The initial list of approximately 20 VCs will be refined, with input from the Technical Authority and the BREA Cumulative Effects working group, to produce a short list that consists of fewer (<5) VCs. This short list will comprise the VCs on which detailed analysis will be performed to test the robustness, variability and sensitivity of the VC (and/or associated indicator) that would demonstrate its ability to reflect a response to a stressor or change of interest.

b. Define linkages between stressors and VCs, as well as the associated uncertainty for each linkage. 

In defining linkages, the contractor will rely on readily available information and development scenarios. The report Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Activity Forecast: Canadian Beaufort Sea 2012-2027 will serve as background material for oil and gas activities (available online at www.BeaufortREA.ca).  

Both human activities (eg. oil and gas activities, shipping) and natural factors (eg. climate change) will be considered. 

The mitigation measures associated with activities will be considered in examining linkages. Mitigation measures (both regional and project-specific), their efficacy, and managing uncertainty around them will affect the net impact of an activity and as such must be considered.

c. Define candidate management indicators (refer to Definitions in section 2a) and describe methods for monitoring each management indicator.

In developing the management indicators, the contractor will consider the following selection criteria:
i.	Demonstrated direct link between human activity and the management indicator 
ii.	Ability for human-induced disturbances to be minimized or mitigated by stakeholders
iii.	Potential for the indicator to integrate multiple VCs.

The suggested monitoring methods will need to be practical to facilitate routine measurement and reporting. 

d. Identify candidate management indicator objectives. 

These objectives will be developed based on Community Conservation Plans, other management plans and other readily available information. The management indicator objectives must be related to the VC management objectives as well as respond to management or conservation objectives set forth in existing plans.

e. Highlight implementation issues and options for a Cumulative Effects Management framework. 

Existing decision making processes and issues for each VC will be highlighted in the legal, regulatory, and policy implementation contexts. The processes and issues will be analyzed in order to identify implementation issues and options for the CE framework. 

Organize a multi-stakeholder workshop, which includes key stakeholders, to present the selected VCs and gather input from stakeholders (1-day workshop; likely held in fall 2013). 

The purpose of the workshop will be to: (1) Describe the VCs selected and the rationale for their selection; (2) Discuss and confirm the candidate management indicators, indicator objectives, monitoring methods, and (3) Discuss implementation issues and options for each of the VCs on the short list. 

Workshop tasks will include the following:
i.	Prepare the schedule and plan and logistics for the event 
ii.	Assist the technical authority in arranging logistics for the event (e.g. venue, audio-visual, catering, etc.). 
iii.	Prepare the Workshop agenda;
iv.	Develop a list of potential invitees with input from the Technical Authority
v.	Invite and track responses to invitations of all approved Participants; 
vi.	Develop any materials required by Participants to prepare and meaningfully contribute in the Workshop, and distribute these materials to confirmed attendees;
vii.	Effectively facilitate Workshop presentation and discussion, including fostering respectful engagement, consideration of all viewpoints and providing for a comprehensive discussion that furthers the achievement of Workshop objectives, while supporting Participants in maintaining the Workshop agenda and schedule; and
viii.	Accurately record Workshop discussions and outcomes for future reference and for the purpose of furthering development of the Cumulative Effects Framework in the form of a draft workshop report.

Prepare a report detailing the analysis and findings of Task 4.1a – e, based on the technical memos and feedback from the technical authority, the CE working group, and the workshop participants. For each VC, the report will include: (1) a rationale for selection as per 4.1a, (2) a description of linkages to activities, including a discussion of potential mitigation measures as per 4.1b, (3) candidate management indicators as per 4.1c, (4) monitoring methods for each indicator as per 4.1c, (5) suggested management indicator objectives as per 4.1d, and (6) implementation issues and options as per 4.1e. The report will also include workshop proceedings.

Task 4.4 consists of a two subtasks (a – b) that will be called up as a group with Tasks 4.5 and 4.6.  Upon completion of each subtask in 4.4, the contractor will prepare a technical memo that describes the findings of each task. These technical memos will be provided to the technical authority in draft format. The Technical Authority will coordinate provision of feedback from stakeholders on the technical memos and provide input to the contractor.

a. Develop candidate triggers for each management indicator.

Tiered triggers will be defined for each indicator to enable an adaptive management approach (such as increased monitoring, or implementation of additional mitigation measures) based on the severity of change. Triggers will follow a scheme defined by the Technical Authority at the start of the task. 

The triggers will make use of available data and be based on scientifically defensible relationships between the indicator and the level of disturbance. In cases where scientific data is lacking, trigger levels may be set based on social choice or the precautionary principle. 

For each indicator, the contractor will describe the level of confidence in defining each of the triggers, as well as identify gaps in information. A timeline for re-evaluating these triggers will be proposed.

b. Define candidate impact management and monitoring strategies, and associated responsibilities for each trigger point.

Impact management practices may include mitigation, avoidance, and alternative means for each linkage. Regulatory tools used to manage impacts such as zonation, regulations, standards, gaps, legislation will also be examined for their applicability. 

Monitoring strategies might include baseline monitoring or effects monitoring.

Responsibilities will include an examination of mandates, existing management practices and plans, regulatory or legal responsibilities, and other relevant factors/situations that would bestow monitoring or impact management responsibilities to an organization. 

The development of triggers with associated impact management, monitoring strategies, and responsibilities will be an iterative process whereby co-management boards, government, and industry will provide input through the BREA Cumulative Effects working group.

Organize a multi-stakeholder workshop to confirm triggers, impact management options, monitoring strategies and the responsible organizations for implementing management and monitoring options. Workshop tasks will be the same as the tasks described in the Workshop for task 4.2.

Prepare a report detailing the analysis and findings of items 4.4 a - b based on the technical memos and feedback from the technical authority, the CE working group, and the workshop participants. For each VC, the report will include: (1) a description of tiered triggers as per 4.4a; (2) impact management, monitoring strategies and responsibilities for the triggers as per 4.4b. The report will also include workshop proceedings.

Task 4.7 consists of two subtasks (a – b) that will be called up as a group with Task 4.8 and 4.9.  Upon completion of each subtask in 4.7, the contractor will prepare a technical memo that describes the findings of each task. These technical memos will be provided to the technical authority in draft format. The Technical Authority will coordinate provision of feedback from stakeholders on the technical memos and provide input to the contractor.

a. Identify and describe linkages to existing research and monitoring programs for each VC and management indicator that may contribute to effects monitoring, and describe gaps. 

Programs considered may contribute to effects monitoring by:
-	Defining reference conditions
-	Confirming stressor linkages to VCs and indicators
-	Confirming project specific or regional mitigation predictions
-	Refining hypothesized cause-effect or functional relationships between indicator changes and industry, harvest and natural stressors
-	Addressing key gaps and uncertainties

The gap identification process will include discussion of gaps in monitoring or research where existing programs would not provide the necessary information to allow for adaptive management (i.e. information required to test impact management practices to allow for evaluation and adaptation of the CEM framework).

b. Develop an implementation strategy for proponents, decision makers and regulatory bodies to adopt the Cumulative Effects Management Framework elements for project review.  Stakeholders include those listed in 1b and other relevant groups named by the technical authority.
   
Organize a multi-stakeholder workshop to confirm that: (1) links to BREA Research Program; and (2) the Cumulative Effects Management framework implementation strategy addresses existing NEB and EISC assessment and review processes. 

The workshop will describe proposed CEM framework linking management indicator triggers with assessment, impact management, and monitoring measures and obtain feedback and signoff on candidate triggers and assessment, impact management, and monitoring measures. Workshop tasks will be the same as the tasks described in Task 4.2.

Prepare a report detailing the analysis and findings of items 4.7 a - b based on the technical memos and feedback from the technical authority, the CE working group, and the workshop participants. The report will describe the proposed regional CEM framework and implementation strategy and will include proceedings from the workshop in Task 4.8. 
 MEETINGS

The contractor must participate in workshops as outlined in the scope of work that will most likely to be held in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. 

Throughout the development of the work, the contractor will be asked to participate in BREA Cumulative Effects working group teleconference meetings (2-3 hours each, every 2-3 months) to present results on tasks and recommend directions for the development of the Framework.

The contractor must participate in monthly telephone meetings with the Technical Authority throughout the duration of the contract to provide updates on the work.

The contractor may be required to conduct telephone meetings or interviews with various stakeholders to aid in development in the framework.

Travel expenses for workshops organized as part of the scope of work will be reimbursed as per Treasury Board guidelines.
 OUTPUT/DELIVERABLES

Timing of the deliverables will be based on stages of completion of tasks.  Completion of subsequent tasks will be subject to negotiation with the Technical Authority at the start of each new task.  Expected total time to complete the project is 22 months.

Payments will be made at the completion of each task.  

For each task, the Contractor will submit: 

DELIVERABLE	DUE DATE
Task 4.1. Interim Framework products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
Technical Memo: List of valued components (as per 4.1a)	Within one month of contract initiation.
Technical Memo: Linkages between stressors and valued components, plus associated uncertainty (as per 4.1b) 	Within one month of short list being approved by working group.
Technical Memo: List of management indicators and associated tracking methods (as per 4.1c)	Within one month following 4.1b.
Technical Memo: Management indicator objectives (as per 4.1d)	Within six weeks following 4.1b.
Technical Memo: Implementation issues and options for a Cumulative Effects Management framework (as per 4.1e)	Within 8 weeks of completion of 4.1b.
Task 4.2. Interim Workshop #1 products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	

List of attendees	6 weeks prior to workshop #1
Workshop agenda and plans for breakout group sessions, 
	5 weeks prior to workshop #1
Meeting materials	2 weeks prior to workshop #1
Draft workshop report	1 month following workshop #1
Task 4.3. Report summarizing: Valued components, their linkages to oil and gas activities, and potential mitigation measures; Candidate management indicators, monitoring methods, and objectives; stakeholder comments, and workshop proceedings.	6 weeks following workshop #1.
Task 4.4. Interim Framework products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
Technical Memo: Candidate triggers for each management indicator (as per 4.4a)	Within 6 weeks of initiating Task 4.4
Technical Memo: Candidate impact management and monitoring strategies (as per 4.4b)	Within 4 weeks of receiving comments on Task 4.4a.
Task 4.5 Interim Workshop #2 products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
List of attendees	6 weeks prior to workshop #2
Workshop agenda and plans for breakout group sessions, 
	5 weeks prior to workshop #2
Meeting materials	2 weeks prior to workshop #2
Draft workshop report	1 month following workshop #2
Task 4.6. Report summarizing: Candidate triggers for each management indicator and candidate impact management and monitoring strategies; stakeholder comments and workshop proceedings.	6 weeks following workshop #2.
Task 4.7. Interim Framework products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
Technical Memo: Linkages to existing research and monitoring program for each VC and management indicator (as per 4.7a)	Within 6 weeks of initiating Task 4.7
Technical Memo: Cumulative Effects Management Framework implementation strategy (as per 4.7b)	Within 4 weeks of receiving comments on Task 4.7a.
Task 4.8 Interim Workshop #3 products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
List of attendees	6 weeks prior to workshop #3
Workshop agenda and plans for breakout group sessions, 
	5 weeks prior to workshop #3
Meeting materials	2 weeks prior to workshop #3
Draft workshop report	1 month following workshop #3
Task 4.9. Report summarizing: Candidate triggers for each management indicator and candidate impact management and monitoring strategies; stakeholder comments and workshop proceedings.	8 weeks following workshop #3.

DELIVERABLE FORMAT & LANGUAGE

-	Deliverables will be delivered in English to the Technical Authority.
-	Interim products will be delivered electronically in Microsoft Office format (Word, Excel, etc).
-	Final products will be delivered electronically in Microsoft Office and .pdf formats.
 DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT

The Department will: 
•	Meet with the Contractor (in person or by phone) to discuss the scope of work and timelines;
•	Provide access to documents, publications, etc. for information gathering and analysis
•	Provide guidance throughout the contract
 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
INVOLVEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY
The Technical Authority will review and approve deliverables that are provided under the contract.  Acceptance of these deliverables will be determined following examination, satisfactory completion and acceptance of the task deliverables by the Technical Authority.  The contractor will need build sufficient time in their work plan to allow for a review and comment period of interim products by the Technical Authority.
COST OF WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS
The contractor will be responsible for their own travel costs as well of technical experts they wish to engage in the work, and these costs are not to include a mark-up.  The technical authority will cover the costs associated with workshops and other engagement functions, including hospitality and the costs associated with attendance of stakeholders. 

 DURATION OF CONTRACT

From contract award until March 31, 2015.

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Bidders’ proposals must meet all Mandatory Requirements for the proposal to be considered for further evaluation.  Failure on the part of the Bidder to meet any one (1) of these requirements will results in their proposal being deemed non-compliant, with the proposal being given no further consideration.  Each mandatory technical criterion must be addressed separately.

Mandatory Requirement
Compliant (YES/NO)	Page #
M1 Corporate Profile

The Bidder MUST provide a company profile and corporate resume demonstrating the Bidder’s knowledge and experience in the provision of services relevant and similar to those described in the Statement of Work (SOW).  At a minimum, the bidder MUST include within the profile:

1.1 The full legal name of the firm submitting the Proposal (including, as applicable, all joint venture, partners or subcontractors); and

1.2 A written description of approximately 1000 words indicating the Bidder’s capabilities as a firm, including the Bidder’s proposed quality assurance methodology and any existing resource availability and access to back-up resources, and the extent of the Bidder’s experience in the provision of services similar to those described in the SOW.		
M2 Project Summaries

2.0 The Bidder MUST provide a minimum of three (3) written project summaries describing in detail the Bidder’s experience in successfully providing services relevant and similar to the SOW. Through the project summaries, the Bidder MUST demonstrate collective experience of the team in three projects in Cumulative effects work in Northern Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut), especially around the identification of valued components, indicators, and thresholds.

2.1 Within each project summary provided, the Bidder MUST indicate:
a) the name of the client organization;
b) a brief description of the type and scope of services provided; 
c) the dates/duration of the project; 
d) the quality assurance methodology utilized; 
e) the role of Bidder proposed resources involved in the project; and
g) the name, title and valid contact information (any of a telephone number, fax number, or e-mail) of a Client Reference within the client organization who possessed oversight or approval authority over the Bidder’s work for the cited project.

2.2. The Bidder must forward each project summary, as submitted within the Bidder’s proposal, to the project’s Client Reference named under M2.1g for completion of the Reference Form identified in M2.4.  The completed form, duly signed by the referee, MUST be submitted as part of the Bidder’s Proposal (in the event the Bidder cannot obtain an original signature from the referee, a faxed or scanned copy of the Reference Form duly signed by the referee and included within the Bidder’s Proposal is acceptable). 

The Bidder MUST NOT sign the reference form on behalf of the referee.  

2.3 At least one (1) of the three (3) project summaries MUST describe the provision of these services for a Federal Government client.		
M3 Proposed Resources

3.0 The Bidder MUST propose a resource team to perform the work described within the SOW, ensuring at a minimum the following criteria are met:
a) A team member is assigned to the project with experience in organizing and leading multi-stakeholder (primarily government, industry, and Aboriginal) consultation, engagement, group facilitation, and/or workshops [Facilitator].
b) A team member assigned to the project with a minimum of eight years experience in project management (project planning and monitoring, managing deliverables and deadlines, managing a project team, providing timely updates to the Project Authority) in complex, multi-stakeholder environmental projects [Project Manager].
c) A team member assigned to the project has eight (8) years of technical experience and expertise in the field of environmental analysis [Senior Consultant].

3.1 To demonstrate the above, the Bidder MUST include detailed CVs for each proposed resource named within its Proposal.  CVs MUST include (a-e):
a) The name of the proposed resource and their assigned role to the Team
b) A list of qualifications directly relevant and similar to the requirements for the work described in the SOW;
c) Descriptions of relevant project experience within the past ten (10) years (including years/months of engagement);
d) Chronological work experience (indicated in years/months); 
e) A detailed listing of relevant academic and professional attainments of the proposed resource.  All formal training should be listed by the title and duration (indicated in years/months) of the course and the name of the institution having provided it.		

Basis of Selection

Basis of Selection – Highest Combined Rating of Technical Criteria & Price
To be declared responsive, a bid must: 
a.	comply with all the requirements of the bid solicitation; 
b.	meet all mandatory technical evaluation criteria; and 
c.	obtain the required minimum of 181 points overall for the technical evaluation criteria which are subject to point rating.  The rating is performed on a scale of 241 points which excludes the optional 20 bonus points that may be awarded for Aboriginal Opportunities consideration.

Bids not meeting (a) or (b) or (c) will be declared non responsive. The responsive bid with the highest number of points will be recommended for award of a contract, provided that the total evaluated price does not exceed the budget available for this requirement.

The selection will be based on the highest response combined rating of technical merit and price.  The ratio will be 70% for the technical merit and 30% for the price.

To establish the technical merit score, the overall technical score for each responsive bid will be determined as follows: total number of points obtained / maximum number of points available multiplied by the ratio of 70%.

To establish the pricing score, each responsive bid will be prorated against the lowest evaluated price and the ratio of 30%.  

For each responsive bid, the technical merit score and the pricing score will be added to determine its combined rating.

Neither the responsive bid obtaining the highest technical score nor the one with the lowest evaluated price will necessarily be accepted.  The responsive bid with the highest combined rating of technical merit and price will be recommended for award of a contract.
The maximum funding available for the Contract resulting from the bid solicitation is as follow:
	Tasks 4.1 – 4.3: $75,000 + Applicable Taxes
	Tasks 4.4 – 4.6: $60,000 + Applicable Taxes
	Tasks 4.7 – 4.9: $40,000 + Applicable Taxes

	TOTAL: $175,000 
(Goods and Services Tax or Harmonized Sales Tax extra, as appropriate). Bids valued in excess of this amount will be considered non-responsive. This disclosure does not commit Canada to pay the maximum funding available.
Contracting Authority:
	
Contracting Authority:   Celine Viner
Phone Number: (819) 994-7304	
Fax Number:	(819) 953-78307721	
E-mail:	  celine.viner@aandc-aadnc.gc.ca