Skip to main content

The Commission seeks to establish Standing Offers with successful contractors to provide Orphan Site Management Restoration services.

Download Orphan Site Management Restoration Services Description


The objective of this Request for Standing Offer is to establish a Standing Offer agreement with the successful contractor(s) to provide services as needed in support of orphan site restoration. Proponents must submit specifically for each service that they are providing a submission.


There are no Ammendments at this time.

Questions and Answers

If you have any questions about this posting, please email

  • Please clarify the Service the Proponent is expected to perform. Is the proponent to supervise onsite seeding, plant salvage and reforestation or is the proponent expected to execute seeding, plant salvage and reforestation (e.g., plant trees) or both?

    It is expected that the successful proponents would have the capacity to provide both the supervision and execution.

  • If a respondent submits a proposal for all four services, and the BC OGC determines that the respondent does not meet the desirable criteria for one of the services, will the respondent be excluded from being offered a Standing Offer for all of the services it proposed, or, just the one the BC OGC determined that the respondent did not meet the desirable criteria?

    Standing offers will be created under both workstreams that will encompass all or part of the services offered based upon resources (qualifications) and availability.

  • 1. Re-Vegetation services: Who is responsible for ordering the trees/applicable materials for revegetation (ie seed, etc)? 2. Will Albertan professional signoffs be adequate for the projects?

    The Contractor would be responsible for all materials.

    Operations would have to be BC certified.

  • 1. Is most of the information in Section 7.0 that “should be followed”, relating to providing a response for the Specific Restoration Services Areas? 2. We plan to provide a response that covers all items identified in both sections (the table called “Desirable Criteria” and Section 7.0), which means the format and response identified in Section 7.0 will not be followed exactly. Please confirm a Response provided in this manner will likely receive “full consideration”. If our proposed response may not receive “full consideration”, please provide clarification on the evaluation criteria and requested format for a response

    All submissions will receive full consideration once mandatory criteria is confirmed.

    Then, based upon the piece that is being bid upon, each submission is scored individually using the table as a guide. Theirs is no set answer, only a desire by the Commission to fairly evaluate proponents to ensure best value for the money that is spent.

    Once individual scores are generated, the group will come together and agree upon a consensus score for all components except the pricing which is analyzed independently by our finance team.

    Once this entire process is complete, a cut-off point is decided that allows us to on-board as many contractors as needed to cover the work plan for the upcoming budget cycles.

  • Is preference given to a company that is proposing to provide fill scope of services, verses a company that may propose to provide services for less than the 4 scopes listed in the RFP.

    Each scope will be evaluated independently based on specific criteria.

  • Does the OGC have preferred lab rates with any labs for the Orphan well program?

    Most consulting firms will have better rates than the OGC.

  • What is the format and frequency required for progress updates to the OGC during a program or project?

    Daily updates for field during active projects and weekly for costs.

  • The cover letter is listed as a maximum of 2 pages, is there are total page limit including attachments?

    There is no set page limit, but files will need to be sized to ensure submission through the procurement portal.

  • Will the company awarded this work be responsible for site access and lease road construction?

    Sometimes yes and sometimes we will work following the abandonment and decommissioning of sites. It will be site and scope specific.

  • Will the successful company run as Prime Contractor for this work?


  • For the ESA example in the ALR. What is the total depth of the well?

    Include all assumptions (including well depth) to provide indication of scope of work and cost development.

  • For the investigation of the common remote sump, is the remote sump associated to the wellsite being investigated? What is the total depth of each well the contributed to the common remote sump?

    It is up to the proponent to document certain assumptions to provide indication of scope of work and cost development.

  • The 500 m3 soil requiring remediation. Is that an in situ or ex-situ volume?

    In situ.

  • . Section 7.d.ii.v.1 for considerations of risk based decision to deal with the impacted soil identified in the common remote sump using SLRA. Can any other risk based approach be used ?


Competition ID: RFSO70022001