Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects Management Framework

Avis de projet de marchés
Ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord Canada (MAINC)
No. de sollicitation : 20-13-0262

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. Definition of Requirements

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.

The BREA Cumulative Effects working group has identified the need to develop a framework that outlines management decision-making approaches that balance existing science-based information with value-based consideration of environmental and socio-cultural components and thresholds of acceptable change.  The working group acknowledges that there are a number of organizations with responsibilities for both the management and monitoring of cumulative effects within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and a cumulative effects management framework needs to clearly identify roles and responsibilities for making decisions and implementing new policies and procedures related to the management of cumulative effects.

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. 

3. Objectives

On behalf of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and the Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment, the Contractor will develop a comprehensive regionally-based Cumulative Effects Management (CEM) framework which meets the needs of the BREA Cumulative Effects working group, using an approach that has been proven to be successful in other scenarios.  

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 experience and multi-stakeholder engagement and decision-making. The success of the study will be demonstrated by developing a framework that could potentially be implemented by key regulators in 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.

4. Scope of Work 

It is expected that the development of a regional framework will be informed by the results of at least 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)
•	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 (EIRB)
5. Output/Deliverables

Interim deliverables will be determined based on the work plan outlined by the successful bidder.  The bidder is encouraged to develop a work plan with deliverables that can demonstrate progress on both technical research and analysis and stakeholder engagement for the development of a Cumulative Effects Management Framework.  This can be through development of technical papers or briefings, and through meeting or workshop agendas and summaries and presentation material, all of which may contribute to the final Cumulative Effects Management Framework.  

At a minimum, the work plan must include the provision of:

(b)	Draft Cumulative Effects Management Framework report: expected for comments and revisions at least 2 months prior to contract completion.
(c)	Final Cumulative Effects Management Framework that incorporates comments and revisions provided by technical authority, due at contract completion.

Timing of the deliverables will be determined based on the work plan submitted by the bidder. Expected total time to complete the project is 10 – 11 months.

For each deliverable, the Contractor will submit: 

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, Powerpoint, etc).
-	Final products will be delivered electronically in Microsoft Office and .pdf formats.
6.  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
7.  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/meeting
The Contractor will be responsible for their own travel arrangements, which will be reimbursed in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Directive.  The Contractor’s travel must be authorized in advance by the Project Authority.
 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 where warranted.

MANDATORY CRITERIA

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
f) 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.

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/or Aboriginal) consultation, engagement, group facilitation, and/or workshops.
b) A team member is assigned to the project with a minimum of eight (8) 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.
c) A team member assigned to the project has eight (8) years of technical experience and expertise in the field of environmental analysis.

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 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.

Contract period: from award until March 31, 2015
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).