Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Management Framework

Notice of Proposed Procurement
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Solicitation # 20-13-0137
Designated Organisation in the CLCA (Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements) areas have been advised.
1.	PROJECT TITLE

Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Management Framework
2. 	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.
3.	 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

The following list of definitions and acronyms is not exhaustive, but rather is intended to ensure clarity of understanding of critical terms used within the Statement of Work (SOW).

TERM	DEFINITION
Management Indicator	A characteristic of the social or ecological setting that is used to describe measure, manage and report on Valued Components (VC).  Management indicators need to be, at least in part, controllable through human intervention.  Examples may include: sound in the marine environment; or degree of habitat disturbance.
Management Objective	A statement that describes desired environmental or social conditions.
Stressor	Natural or anthropogenic variable that can be correlated to a management indicator.  
Trigger	The point at which an indicator changes condition in relation to management objectives, defined either from an ecological or social perspective.

Tiered Trigger	Tiered Triggers: A series of progressive points along the management indicator spectrum that reflects increasing degrees of concern or risk.
Valued Component	An aspect of the environment that is considered important, on the bases of economic, social, cultural, community, ecological, legal or political concern. A VC is not an indicator in itself, although impacts on, or trends in, some characteristic of a VC may be used as an indicator.

4.  OBJECTIVES

On behalf of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (DIAND) 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.

5. 	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.

•	Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
•	Joint Secretariat
•	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)
•	Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (DIAND)
•	Government of Yukon (YG)
•	Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)
•	Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
•	Environment Canada (EC)
•	Parks Canada (PC)
•	Environmental Impact Review Board

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

6. 	TASKS

Task 6.1 consists of a series of subtasks (a – e) that will be called up as a group with Tasks 6.2 and 6.3.  Upon completion of each subtask in 6.1, 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.

4.1	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 than five (<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 (e.g. 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. 

4.2	Organize a multi-stakeholder workshop, which includes key stakeholders, to present the selected VCs and gather input from stakeholders (2-3 day workshop). 

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, including notional concepts for triggers for management indicators, as well as assessment and monitoring strategies. 

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.

4.3	Prepare a report detailing the analysis and findings of Task 6.1a – 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 6.1a, (2) a description of linkages to activities, including a discussion of potential mitigation measures as per 6.1b, (3) candidate management indicators as per 6.1c, (4) monitoring methods for each indicator as per 6.1c, (5) suggested management indicator objectives as per 6.1d, and (6) implementation issues and options as per 6.1e. The report will also include workshop proceedings.

Task 6.4 consists of four subtasks (a, b, c and d) that will be called up as a group with Tasks 6.5 and 6.6.  Upon completion of each subtask in 6.4, 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.

4.4	a. Develop candidate triggers for each management indicator based on input received during the workshop in Task 6.2.

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.

c. 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).

d. 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.
   
4.5	Organize a multi-stakeholder workshop to discuss and confirm: (1) candidate triggers; (2) impact management and monitoring strategies, and associated responsibilities for each trigger point; (3) links to BREA Research Program; and (4) 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 6.2.

4.6	Prepare a report detailing the analysis and findings of items 6.4 a, b, c and d 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 6.5. 
7. 	MEETINGS

The contractor must participate in workshops as outlined in the scope of work that will most likely 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.
8. 	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 16 months.

Payments will be made at the completion of each task.  

For each task, the Contractor will submit: 

DELIVERABLE	DUE DATE
Task 6.1. Interim Framework products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
Technical Memo: List of valued components (as per 6.1a)	Within one month of contract initiation.
Technical Memo: Linkages between stressors and valued components, plus associated uncertainty (as per 6.1b) 	Within one month of short list being approved by working group.
Technical Memo: List of management indicators and associated tracking methods (as per 6.1c)	Within one month following 6.1b.
Technical Memo: Management indicator objectives (as per 6.1d)	Within six weeks following 6.1b.
Technical Memo: Implementation issues and options for a Cumulative Effects Management framework (as per 6.1e)	Within 8 weeks of completion of 6.1b.
Task 6.2. 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 6.3. 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 6.4. Interim Framework products for approval by the Project Authority and Cumulative Effects working group	
Technical Memo: Candidate triggers for each management indicator (as per 6.4a)	Within 6 weeks of initiating Task 6.4
Technical Memo: Candidate impact management and monitoring strategies (as per 6.4b)


Technical Memo: Linkages to existing research and monitoring program for each VC and management indicator (as per 6.4c)


Technical Memo: Cumulative Effects Management Framework implementation strategy (as per 6.4d)	Within 4 weeks of receiving comments on Task 6.4a.

Within 6 weeks of receiving comments on Task 6.4b.

Within 4 weeks of receiving comments on Task 6.4c.
Task 6.5 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 6.6. Report summarizing: Candidate triggers for each management indicator and candidate impact management and monitoring strategies; stakeholder comments and workshop proceedings.	8 weeks following workshop #2.

9.	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.
10.  	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
11.  	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 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, facilities rentals and the costs associated with attendance of stakeholders. 

12.  DURATION OF CONTRACT

From contract award until March 31, 2015.

13.  ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE

Tasks 6.1 – 6.3: $100,000 + Applicable Taxes
Tasks 6.4 – 6.6: $125,000 + Applicable Taxes

TOTAL: $225,000 + GST

The estimated expenditures above represent the total maximum budget for the project. The cost proposal must be within the estimated cost for each group of tasks.  Payments will be made upon the completion of each task.

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 two (2) 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  two 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 At least one (1) of the two (2) 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

Only compliant Proposals will be considered.

Only Proposals that have met all Mandatory Requirements, and have achieved or exceeded the minimum required pass marks for the Point-Rated Criteria will be considered.  All Proposals will be rated on technical acceptability before the price is considered.

Contract will be awarded based on a determination of Best Value taking into account both the technical merit of the Proposals and the Financial Evaluation. To arrive at an overall score achieved by a Bidder, a weighting has been established whereby technical merit will be valued at 70% of the Proposal and price will be valued at 30% of the Proposal.  The Bidder will be selected on the basis of the highest combined rating of technical merit and price.

DIAND intends to award one (1) contract a result of this solicitation to the Bidder(s) representing Best Value, as determined in accordance with the Selection and Evaluation Criteria of this RFP.  Best Value shall be defined as the highest Total Scores.
This procurement is subject to the World Trade Organization – Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO-AGP), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Agreement of Internal Trade (AIT).