Closed ATM View - PRI-00004494
Review of Australia's Offshore Petroleum Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Framework
Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart
There are inherent limitations within Australia’s existing offshore petroleum OSPR framework and this project will evaluate alternatives which could deliver a significant change in performance. Recent impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted vulnerabilities in Australia’s offshore petroleum oil spill response capabilities and the reliability of international support.
The project will be delivered across three phases:
1. Concept development, research and analysis
2. Industry engagement and implementation planning
3. Implementation and transition.
This Approach to Market is for the provision of Phase 1 of the project which is broken down into the following four components.
Phase 1a: Future risk landscape analysis
Define the range of probable and possible offshore petroleum future risk landscapes for which the oil spill preparedness and response framework must be prepared and resilient.
This phase should consider the risk landscape as it will influence appropriate mechanisms for OSPR risk management, and the regulatory oversight of OSPR. For instance:
• Possible industry composition
• Inherent oil pollution risks (based on prospective location, hydrocarbon type etc).
Phase 1b: Comparative review of the Australian Offshore Petroleum framework for oil pollution preparedness and response against global best practice
There are various frameworks for oil pollution preparedness and response across the globe. This phase of the project is to compare the existing framework and associated service delivery models for offshore petroleum oil spill preparedness and response in Australia against alternative models in the USA, Norway, UK and Russia.
The review is to focus on the oil spill preparedness and response framework, specifically:
• mechanisms for oversight of cooperative organisations (direct and indirect regulation/certification)
• supporting services delivery models
• coordination of response across jurisdictions
Effectiveness and efficiency criteria must be established and evaluated, including as a minimum:
• resilience of framework against external pressures (e.g. COVID-19)
• protection against variability in performance between companies
The review should also make comparisons to better practice frameworks employed in other areas of emergency management where applicable.
Phase 1c: Options analysis of alternative frameworks for Offshore Petroleum OSPR including supporting service delivery models and oversight mechanisms
This phase of the project involves the development of alternative frameworks for offshore petroleum oil spill preparedness and response.
The alternative frameworks should be informed by the comparative review of global frameworks completed at Phase 2 and demonstrate how global best practice features could be incorporated into the Australian jurisdiction, including the necessary adjustments to service delivery models.
Alternative frameworks are to be presented in accordance with the following criteria:
• simplicity of the model and coordination arrangements
• mechanisms for regulatory oversight
• relative strengths and limitations against the existing framework
• relative effectiveness and efficiency against the existing framework.
Where possible, effectiveness and efficiency should be quantified, against existing frameworks and global best practice frameworks identified in Phase 1b.
Phase 1d: Impact statement (incl. cost/benefit analysis) and industry engagement
This phase of the project involves contrasting the comparative costs and benefits of implementing the proposed revised framework against the existing model.
Quantification of costs against effectiveness and efficiency gains and the level of risk reduction achieved in the existing framework vs the preferred alternative framework. Increased costs may be justified where material improvements in effectiveness of response capability and treatment of strategic risk to the Commonwealth can be demonstrated.
A cost benefit analysis is to be prepared to inform a regulatory impact statement of implementing the preferred alternative framework.
A stakeholder communications plan is to be prepared to target key project stakeholders and communicate the benefits of implementing the preferred alternative framework. Stages 2 and 3 of the project will be developed on completion of Stage 1.
The tenderer and any subcontractors proposed in the tender must not be named as not complying with the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (Cth).
The tenderer confirms that in dealing with its employees and independent contractors, the tenderer has due regard to Commonwealth policies on the engagement of workers, comply with Commonwealth policies on the engagement of workers, including the obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) and relevant work health and safety laws.
The tenderer and any subcontractors proposed in the tender are not insolvent, bankrupt, in liquidation, or under administration or receivership.
August 2021 – March 2022