Konkurransegrunnlag Del II

Transkript

1 Vest Konkurransegrunnlag Del II Anskaffelse av konsulenttjenester knyttet til IMO e- navigation prosjekt Avtale med bilag (kravspesifikasjon m.v.) Saksnummer 11/00251

2 Innholdsfortegnelse Avtale... 3 Bilag 1 Kravspesifikasjon... 4 Bilag 2 Løsningsbeskrivelse Bilag 3 Pris Bilag 4 Endringer [Ved bruk av standardavtaler som avviker fra dette oppsettet, brukes bare forsiden på Konkurransegrunnlag Del II. NB! Avtalen må inneholde egen del med kravspesifikasjon.] navigation prosjekt Side 2 av 13

3 Avtale Kystverket vil legge til grunn følgende avtaler ved kontraktsinngåelse for følgende tjeneste område Konsulent bistand Statens standardavtale om konsulentbistand Bistandsavtalen (SSA-B) Avtalen følger vedlagt dette konkurransegrunnlaget Del II navigation prosjekt Side 3 av 13

4 Bilag 1 Kravspesifikasjon Generelt om bistanden The Norwegian Coastal Administration (NCA) is coordinating the IMO project on e- navigation. The task for 2011 and 2012 will be to finalize a gap analysis based on the agreed specification of the user requirements, and consequently to do the risk and cost-benefit analyses according to IMO s methodology for Formal Safety Assessment. (FSA) For 2011 and 2012 NCA needs consultants to assist in preparing the gap analysis and the FSA, - but eventually also to carry out the FSA. We will also require consulting services connected to various tasks that is to be carried out in the e-navigation project. The type of support required in this regard are related to these following areas: Operational Technical Legal Training The NCA would like to enter into agreements with suppliers who have appropriate expertise and good delivery capacity within the service areas that will be delivered. The contractor shall include a profile which lists the capacity and competence for the consultants offered. The working language for all the work, orally and in writing, shall be in English and there are therefore entitled to good language skills. This must be documented Assistance shall be commenced within 3 days after the call-off on the agreement made. The extent and length of assistance will be clarified in advance Nærmere beskrivelse av bistanden knyttet til Gap og kost / nytte analyse bistanden. Description of tasks and the methodology for completing the gap, risk and cost-benefit analyses for the IMO project on e-navigation Gap analysis. The initial gap analysis which was presented by the IMO Correspondence Group on e- navigation to the NAV, COMSAR and STW Sub-Committees in 2010 and 2011 serves as the platform for performing the final gap analysis. (Latest version: Report from the Correspondence Group on e-navigation to COMSAR 15, Annex ) With reference to the Work Programme on e-navigation (MSC86/23/4) and taking into account the human element throughout the process, further gap analyses should focus on navigation prosjekt Side 4 av 13

5 technical, regulatory, operational and training aspects. It is recognized that these aspects are inter-related and need to be considered in a coordinated manner. The gap analysis should focus on the following elements:.1 technical gap analysis, comparing the capabilities and properties of existing systems with the architectural requirements to identify any technology or system development that might be needed, based solely on the user needs. This should result in a program of development work that needs to be done to provide technology solutions to user requirements in their entirety;.2 regulatory gap analysis, particularly identifying gaps in the present frameworks that need to be filled, e.g., in the provision of services in international waters. Based on this analysis, any institutional reform that is needed should be proposed for implementation;.3 operational gap analysis, to define a baseline concept of operations that could be used based on the integration of existing technology and systems and the extent to which implementation of e-navigation could enhance operations; and.4 training gap analyses will logically follow the others to ensure that any technology or systems introduced as a component of e-navigation will include an appropriate level of instruction for the individuals that will be entrusted with its operation. The final gap analysis should be specific in its description of the measures and actions that need to be undertaken in order to fill the identified gaps. This will be a precondition for the gap analysis to serve as an adequate basis for the risk and cost-benefit analyses that will be undertaken consequently Cost-benefit and risk analyses. Cost-benefit and risk analyses will be an integral part of the Strategy Implementation Plan on e-navigation, and will be used to support strategic decisions if, as and when certain functions need to be enabled. The analyses should address financial and economic aspects as well as assess the impact on safety, security and the environment. Methodology for performing the analyses. The Working Group at NAV 56 agreed that when conducting the gap, cost benefit and risk analyses, emphasis should be placed on the needs of the end user, which could include reliability and availability of systems proposed. Furthermore, cost benefit and risk analyses may include an impact assessment providing an overall and transparent view on the consequences of the implementation of the proposed solutions on all stakeholders. The results of this impact assessment should support all stakeholders in the strategy implementation plan process. (Report of the Working Group at NAV 56: NAV56/WP.5/Rev.1.) navigation prosjekt Side 5 av 13

6 NAV 56 endorsed the initial cost benefit and risk analyses. (Report to MSC from NAV 56: NAV ) The initial cost-benefit and risk analyses as presented to NAV 56 describe the methodology, and the performance will be done accordingly. The agreed principles are summarized below: Initial Risk Analysis Risk analysis for IMOs regulatory work is defined in the IMO Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) Guidelines, which is a structured and systematic methodology, aimed at enhancing maritime safety, including protection of life, health, the marine environment and property, by using risk analysis and cost benefit assessment. FSA is consistent with the current IMO decision-making process. FSA makes it possible to appreciate the effect of proposed regulatory changes in terms of benefits (e.g. expected reduction of lives lost or of pollution) and related costs incurred for the industry as a whole and for individual parties affected by the decision. FSA should facilitate the development of regulatory changes equitable to the various parties thus aiding the achievement of consensus. As part of the risk analysis, the level of reliability of systems and the trust mariners have at them should be taken into account. navigation prosjekt Side 6 av 13

7 Figure 3. Figure 3: FSA should comprise the following steps: 1. Identification of hazards; 2. Risk analysis; 3. Risk control options; 4. Cost benefit assessment; and 5. Recommendations for decision-making. As the FSA will be carried out after the completion of a gap analysis, the following should be noticed:.1 Part of the hazard identification done in the gap analysis, might be unnecessary..2 The risk analysis will be the most time consuming part, and should be done in a project..3 Risk control options (RCO) will be identified in the gap analysis.4 The cost benefit analysis will need to be done following normal FSA procedures. Some RCOs may require large infrastructure investments. The navigation prosjekt Side 7 av 13

8 FSA approach can still be used, but RCOs may have to be combined to be effective..5 Recommendations should be based on the results of the cost benefit assessment. Initial Cost Benefit Assessment Cost Benefit Assessment (CBA) implies that all costs and benefits are translated into monetary units (lives lost, ill-health, injuries, environmental effects, and economic effects). This requires that the regulator (IMO) defines explicit acceptance criteria in great detail, for use in CBA as conversion factors. The acceptance criterion in CBA is simply that Risk Control Options (RCOs) should be implemented if Costs ($) < Benefits ($) In practice at IMO this involves a cost effectiveness analysis of each Risk Control Option (RCO) as described in the FSA Guidelines. The cost effectiveness for each RCO is presented. A new feature resulting from the e-navigation strategy may be presented as an RCO if the intention is to reduce the risk to persons, the ship or the environment. If the intention is commercial improvement cost benefit analysis may be carried out by estimating the Net Present Value of introducing the feature. This type of analysis is standardized. Cost Effectiveness Assessment in FSA context. If the effect of the e-navigation solution is not reducing risk to life or the environment but reducing economic consequences/saving money, the cost benefit assessment should be carried out by calculating the Net Present Value of the cash-flow generated (costs C, and economic benefits B) and a commercial interest rate (e.g. r=10% real), over the horizon of I years (I=25 usually used for ships). NPV i I i = = i= 1 (1 + ΔB ΔC r /100) i i The e-navigation solution is economically attractive if NPV > 0 Quantification of costs. Costs for implementing an RCO are Marginal Costs as compared to the base case (in the e- navigation project the base case is the current situation, or more correctly the situation when all decisions already made have been implemented). Using the gap analysis terminology the cost is the cost of closing the gap. Costs may be such as cost of equipment, of redesign and construction, of documentation, of training, of inspection, maintenance and drills, of auditing, of regulations, reduced commercial use or operational limitations. It may be difficult to agree on realistic cost estimates because of the large differences between markets, and it is likely that some standardised assumptions must be agreed in the e- navigation activity. There are also other effects that it may be necessary to consider. For example, RCOs may be costly initially, but as the market for a specific RCO is established the economy of scale will help to reduce the costs. This is likely to be important for e-navigation equipment on navigation prosjekt Side 8 av 13

9 ships, as some large infrastructure costs may be necessary initially onshore or in space. The opposite effect is also possible. A demand for a large number of upgrades in a short time may increase the costs due to limited capacity at the yards and equipment manufacturers. Analyzing the level of costs and benefits it may also be useful to identify who gets the benefits and who bears the costs of each risk control option. Quantification of benefits. Benefits are such as reduced probability of fatalities or number of fatalities, reduced numbers of injuries and severity of injuries, reduced negative effects to health, reduced probability and/or severity of pollution, reduced work load, reduced turnaround times, reduced regular releases, reduced economic losses, or reduced fuel consumption, better route planning, weather routing, just-in time etc. All benefits are compared with a BASE CASE, established in Step 2 of FSA or in the gap analysis. All benefits are the marginal benefits as compared to this base case. Risk reducing benefits are estimated by reusing the risk model from Step 2 of FSA. The risks are simply recalculated with the RCO implemented. There are benefits e.g. to the owner of the ship that is not relevant in an FSA. For example reduced insurance premiums as result of RCO should not be included as a benefit, because the FSA includes the corresponding risk reduction explicitly. To include an eventually reduced insurance premium would count the same effect twice. The reduced number of fatalities should be measured in terms of Potential Loss of Life (PLL). This term really means the expected loss of life. PLL is estimated by the annual probability of fatalities summed up over all accident scenarios. The unit of PLL is expected fatalities per ship-year. Benefits should also be quantified on an FN diagram (see FSA Guidelines). At MSC 72/16 it was suggested using the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years, (QALY). The concept is simple: One life year in perfect health is one QALY. The effect of an RCO that is implemented is quantified as the number of QALY gained. There are many sources of information with respect to valuation of reduced health & injuries, e.g. insurance compensation, insurance willingness to pay, national norms for compensation etc. At MSC 74 it was suggested to rather to use the concept of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY). The reason is that DALY has been extensively used in the work of the World Health Organisation. DALY is a more general concept than QALY, but is identical under certain assumptions. DALY is the concept used in the new FSA Guidelines and a risk criterion is defined. Quantification of cost effectiveness. Two concepts have been used previously at IMO. The term cost per unit risk reduction was used in the IMO FSA Guideline. The term Implied Cost of Averting a Fatality (ICAF) has been used by others. To avoid any confusion it was suggested to define two new terms. The Gross Cost of Averting a Fatality (GCAF) would be used to find out if an RCO could be justified purely because of life saving capabilities. GCAF = ΔCost/ΔPLL Similarly the Net Cost of Averting a Fatality (NCAF) should be presented as NCAF = (ΔCost-ΔEconomic Benefits)/ΔPLL The terms GCAF and NCAF have been used consistently in all FSAs since MSC74. Discount rates. navigation prosjekt Side 9 av 13

10 Discount rates are used for many different purposes, for example:.1 In an investment analysis, the discount rate could be the real cost of capital (the banks interest rate, because capital is borrowed at some rate to finance the project)..2 The discount rate could also include a risk premium (in a normal calculation of Net Present Value). Since most projects have some uncertain costs and incomes the investment analysis sometimes reflect this by using a discount rate with a risk premium..3 The discount rate could also reflect the rate of return on alternative investments the company could make, and thereby the discount rate has nothing to do with the project analysed. The cost of capital is not relevant in the FSA context. How the investment in the ship and its safety is financed is not a concern of the safety regulator. It should also be obvious that a risk premium on discount rates is irrelevant in a risk analysis, since the risks are modelled explicitly. Most FSAs submitted to IMO have used these principles. navigation prosjekt Side 10 av 13

11 Bilag 2 Løsningsbeskrivelse Leverandørens beskrivelse av løsningen og/eller bekreftelse på de krav som fremkommer i Bilag 1. Løsningsbeskrivelsen skal følge samme nummerering som Bilag 1 og det skal klart fremgå om og hvordan kravene skal oppfylles. [Sett inn leverandørens løsningsbeskrivelse her] navigation prosjekt Side 11 av 13

12 Bilag 3 Pris 3.1 Prisbetingelser Timepriser fremgår av tabellen nedenfor. Det er kun de nevnte kategorier som skal benyttes. Kategoriene og prisene skal også dekke evt. underleverandører. Timepris Timepris pålagt overtid Eksl. Mva Inkl. Mva Eksl. Mva. Inkl. Mva Seniorkonsulent Konsulent Juniorkonsulent Administrativ støtte Fakturaadresse: Kystverket Postboks 4104 Fakturamottak SSØ 2307 Hamar Faktura skal merkes med referansenummer 3260vhb Øvrige pris og administrative bestemmelser fremgår av refererte avtale, se vedlegg. 3.2 Fordelingsnøkkel for oppdragene Antall avrop på avtalene og omfang av disse kan ikke angis nøyaktig. Erfaring fra tidligere år tilsier et årlig volum på til til sammen for alle hovedområder men dette er avhengig av det kommende arbeidet i IMO. Kystverket vil inngå 3-5 avtaler om konsulentbistand som det kan gjøres avrop på og som dekker hovedområdene nærmere beskrevet i bilag 1 og områdene operasjonelt, teknisk, juridisk og opplæring som omfattes av e-navigasjonskonseptet: Da omfanget og arten av bistanden er uklart vil fordelingen mellom avtalene være basert på bistandens art, kompleksitet, tidsmessige krav til leveranse og prosentvise andeler av omsetning. Med prosentvis andeler mener vi prosentvis lik fordeling men med et avvik %. navigation prosjekt Side 12 av 13

13 Bilag 4 Endringer Endringer til rammeavtalen skal være skriftlige og følge malskjema nedenfor. Underskrevet endring legges ved dette bilaget. Skjema for endringer Endring [x] til avtale om [navn] mellom Kystverket [Navn] og [Navn på leverandør] signert [Dato] Denne endring gjøres i henhold til betingelsene i ovenfor nevnte Avtale. I avtale om [navn] mellom Kystverket [Navn] (Kunden) og [Navn på leverandør] (Leverandøren), gjøres følgende endringer/tillegg, jf generell avtaletekst punkt 13: Dette dokument er undertegnet i to eksemplarer hvorav hver part beholder ett. For Kunden: Dato og underskrift: For Leverandøren: Dato og underskrift: Navn: Stilling: Navn: Stilling: navigation prosjekt Side 13 av 13