Human health risk assessment for the Giant Mine Remediation project

On this page

• Background and introduction
• Project requirement
• Attestation of assurance
• Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology
• Fairness monitor specific activities and findings
• Reference documents
• Addendum to final report, July 19, 2016

Background and introduction

Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture was engaged as the Fairness Monitor (FM) to observe the competitive procurement processes required for long term contracts to support the Giant Mine Remediation project undertaken by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) now Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC). Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. and Hill International Inc. in Joint Venture is an independent third party with respect to this activity.

The Giant Mine Remediation project requires a number of support and design services contracts. The subject of this report is the procurement of human health risk assessment services undertaken through request for proposal (RFP) solicitation number EW699-162633/A.

We hereby submit the final report covering our activities commencing with a review of the RFP on April 27, 2016, through the evaluation of proposals and the selection of the recommended bidder.

This report includes our attestation of assurance, a summary of the scope and objectives of our assignment, the methodologies applied, and specific activities and relevant findings.

Project requirement

After the owner of the Giant Mine located in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories went into receivership, the Government of Canada took on the responsibility for the existing environmental liabilities on the Giant Mine property. Environmental liabilities include 237,000 long tons of arsenic trioxide dust produced during the gold roasting process stored in fourteen chambers underground, eight open pits, 35 openings, four tailing ponds, and 100 buildings including a roaster house complex that is highly contaminated with arsenic and fibrous asbestos.

In support of its application to proceed with the proposed Remediation Project, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) submitted its risk assessment for the project to the Mackenzie Valley Review Board (MVRB). In its decision, the MVRB directed AANDC to prepare another Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) as follows:

• Measure 10: The Developer will commission a comprehensive human health risk assessment by an independent qualified human health risk assessor selected in collaboration with Health Canada, the Yellowknives Dene, the City of Yellowknife and the Developer. This human health risk assessment will be completed before the Project receives regulatory approvals.

The objective of the risk assessment is to quantify the likely change (that is, reduction) in exposure and risk from arsenic and other contaminants of potential concern associated with remediation of the Giant Mine site.

The scope of services will include but is not limited to:

• background preparation and data review
• review and revision of the preliminary problem formulation
• consultation with stakeholders
• site characteristics
• detailed quantitative human health risk assessment
• problem formulation
• exposure assessment
• toxicity assessment
• risk characterization
• uncertainty analysis
• presentation of results

Attestation of assurance

The Fairness Monitor hereby provides the following unqualified assurance statement concerning the procurement process to select a company to provide a Human Health Risk Assessment for the Giant Mine Remediation project:

It is our professional opinion that the competitive process we observed was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.

Objectives of the fairness monitor assignment and methodology

The overall objective was as follows: provide PSPC through the Director of Fairness Monitoring with independent observation of project procurement activities; provide fairness related comments to project officials as early as possible so that appropriate action could be taken to resolve the concerns before fairness was impacted; bring any potential fairness concerns to the attention of the Director, Fairness Monitoring if there is no timely resolution with project officials; and attest to the fairness of the procurement process, including its execution.

To accomplish the objective we undertook the following activities:

• became familiar with the project governance structure
• reviewed the RFP
• reviewed all amendments and addenda to the RFP including questions submitted by bidders and answers provided
• reviewed the procedures to be used for the evaluation of responses and the guidance provided to the evaluation team
• observed the evaluation of responses to the RFP to ensure that the specified evaluation and contractor selection procedures and departmental policy were followed and consistently applied during the evaluation and selection process
• observed the debriefing of unsuccessful bidders. (This activity will be reported on in an addendum to this report after any debriefings)

Fairness monitor specific activities and findings

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the request for proposal posting period

On April 27, 2016 we reviewed the RFP (Document 1) already posted on Buyandsell.gc.ca on March 31, 2016 including Amendments 1 to 5 (Documents 2 to 6) and provided fairness related comments to the Contracting Authority. On May 5, 2016 we reviewed the response received from the Contracting Authority describing the action being taken on our comments. The action addressed our concerns and no fairness deficiencies were identified.

Also on May 6, 2016, we reviewed Amendments 6 to 9 (Documents 7 to 10) to the RFP. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

The RFP closed on May 11, 2016.

Fairness monitor activities and findings during the evaluation phase

On May 11, 2016 we reviewed a Document entitled “A Guide to the Evaluation Board” forwarded by the Contracting Contractor to the members of the Evaluation Board. No fairness deficiencies were identified. On May 12, 2016 we monitored by teleconference the Evaluation Board Kick-off Meeting. The Contracting Authority reviewed the evaluation process that would be used and the expected schedule. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On May 19, 2016 we monitored by teleconference the consensus evaluation of mandatory criteria. The Contracting Authority advised that one proposal had been received at the wrong location and in accordance with the RFP would not be considered. Each evaluator agreed that all mandatory requirements on each proposal of the remaining proposals were compliant. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 19, 2016 we reviewed the Rating Forms distributed by the Contracting Authority to each evaluator to facilitate recording of individual evaluation results of rated requirements. The Forms were consistent with the RFP. On May 20, 2016 we reviewed a question from the Contracting Authority on the evaluation process and agreed with the action proposed by the Contracting Authority. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

On May 26, 2016 we observed the consensus evaluation of rated requirements. Best evaluation practices were followed. For each response to a rated requirement in each proposal, each evaluator summarized their findings followed by a discussion that led to a consensus score. While responses to Aboriginal Opportunities Consideration requirements were discussed, it was agreed that finalization of the scores would be delayed until expert guidance could be obtained. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On June 3, 2016 we monitored a consensus evaluation meeting at which the Aboriginal Opportunities Consideration rated requirements were reviewed and consensus results confirmed. Fairness related comments were provided and appropriate action was taken.

On June 10, 2016 we were informed by the Contracting Authority that the Financial Evaluation results had been double checked by a second party and that the Proposal that had achieved the highest combined rating of technical merit and price had been determined based on the RFP specified basis of selection. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Note: For all references in this report concerning fairness related comments being provided to project officials, it is confirmed that, as necessary, project officials provided clarification to the Fairness Monitor or took appropriate action to address the comments, and as a result no fairness deficiencies were recorded.

Reference documents

The following documents are referenced by number in this report. Unless otherwise indicated, these documents are available through the Giant Mine Remediation project office.

Procurement documents by publication date

No.	Documents	Date
1	Request for Proposal (RFP)	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on March 31, 2016
2	Amendment 1 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 14, 2016
3	Amendment 2 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 15, 2016
4	Amendment 3 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 20, 2016
5	Amendment 4 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 26, 2016
6	Amendment 5 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 26, 2016
7	Amendment 6 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 27, 2016
8	Amendment 7 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on April 29, 2016
9	Amendment 8 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on May 3, 2016
10	Amendment 9 to RFP	Published on Buyandsell.gc.ca and dated on May 5, 2016

Addendum to final report, July 19, 2016

Addendum to fairness monitor final report dated July 8, 2016, concerning human health risk assessment services for the Giant Mine Remediation project

This addendum to the fairness monitor final report covers the period following the conclusion of the evaluation phase including the debriefing of bidders.

The successful bidder was informed on June 8, 2016 of the award of contract.

Project officials did not provide draft or final regret letters to us prior to sending them to unsuccessful bidders and scheduled and held a verbal debriefing with one unsuccessful bidder on June 14, 2016 without our knowledge. On June 17, 2016 project officials forwarded copies of the regret letters to us that had been sent to the unsuccessful bidders on June 8, 2016. The regret letters were comprehensive, detailing any mandatory criteria where its bid had been found non-compliant, including not meeting minimum pass marks and providing the scores achieved for each rated requirement. Both the total technical score and financial score of the unsuccessful bidder concerned were specified along with the total technical score and financial score of the successful bidder. The letters invited each bidder to contact the Contracting Authority if further information regarding the evaluation of its bid was required. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

We were informed by the Contracting Authority on June 18, 2016 that no other unsuccessful bidder had requested a verbal debriefing.

We monitored the teleconference debriefing of the successful bidder on June 23, 2016. No fairness deficiencies were identified.

Fairness monitor attestation of assurance

It is the professional opinion of the Fairness Monitor that the post evaluation activities, including the debriefings, were carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.