Request for Quotation 

P2103363: Rapid evidence assessment: Net Zero Carbon and UK Cropping Review - A high level scoping review

1. Background 

The impact of farming on the climate has been very much in the national headlines. The AHDB, NFU and CHAP are seeking to undertake research to build consensus for the industry to understand baseline greenhouse gas emissions for cropping sectors across the United Kingdom, to identify hotspots for improvement and to provide options for mitigation. Where possible the information obtained will contribute to a high-level review of research studies and evidence syntheses to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase carbon storage, including an appreciation of major policy issues across the devolved administrations. 

We are seeking to produce a review for UK arable and horticultural (both outdoor and protected) crop production that is on a par with the recently published assessment for livestock production GHG emissions and technologies to deliver Net Zero; Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock (CIEL) Net Zero Carbon & UK Livestock Review

The review will:

  • Provide a description of major carbon transactions for the supply chains of each crop type. A general appreciation of the complete supply chain, with detail for farm inputs (e.g. Scope 3 carbon emissions linked to agro-chemical use), and on-farm production (Scope 1 & 2 emissions) including on-farm primary processing and packing operations (Scope 3).

  • Establish baseline emissions for the major cropping systems listed in Tables 1 and 2.

  • Benchmark the emissions of the UK cropping sectors by showing the range of national variations in GHG efficiency and compare these with our international peers.

  • Enable comparative footprinting of crops (e.g. wheat versus barley, etc.).

  • Identify the main opportunities for reducing emissions and options for attaining net zero goals, including an assessment of abatement potential versus costs and speed of change.

  • Summarise recommendation for the sector to review and develop into road maps/KPIs.

2. Tender for work

We are seeking tenders for:

Work package 1: Arable emissions

  1. Current carbon benchmarks for the arable crops listed in Table 1 in terms of GHG footprints within a range of representative farming systems (including organic production), with particular emphasis on rotations.

  2. A comparison of production systems (inclusive of tillage [but not comparing tillage systems], rotations and precision approaches) to demonstrate where typical UK enterprises rank alongside significant international competitors.

  3. An identification of areas where research is needed to fill knowledge gaps

  4. Key research and innovation advances relevant to GHG emissions and opportunities for mitigation

Table 1: Arable crops for review for UK production systems and international competitors 

SectorAnalysisKey competitorsQuestions/notes

 

Systems/Products

Calculation stops at

Units GHG per

 

 

Arable crops

winter wheat

spring wheat

winter barley

spring barley

oats

oilseed rape

sugar beet

field beans

field peas

 

potatoes

 

imported maize

imported soya

mill or
1st processor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

packhouse

 

importation site

 

tonne grain

and

GJ feed energy content

Wheat: France, Ukraine, Canada
OSR:
Australia
Ukraine, Canada

 

 

 

Maize/soya: alternative sources

 

 

 Work package 2: Horticulture emissions

  1. Current carbon benchmarks for outdoor-grown and protected vegetable crops listed in Table 2 in terms of GHG footprints within a range of representative farming systems, (including organic production where possible), with particular emphasis on rotations.

  2. A comparison of production systems (including differences in scale and infrastructure) to demonstrate where typical UK enterprises rank alongside significant international competitors.

  3. An identification of areas where research is needed to fill knowledge gaps

  4. Key research and innovation advances relevant to GHG emissions and opportunities for mitigation

Table 2: Horticultural crops for review for UK production systems and international competitors 

SectorAnalysisKey competitorsQuestions/notes

 

Systems/Products

Calculation stops at

Units GHG per[1]

 

 

Field vegetables

carrot

parsnip

cabbage

cauliflower

broccoli/calabrese

Brussels sprouts

iceberg lettuce

beetroot

vining peas

onions

leeks

sweetcorn

asparagus

packhouse

kg

Crop dependent – largely Spain,

 

Protected Cropping (glasshouse/

polytunnel)

tomato

pepper

cucumber

strawberry

 

packhouse

kg

Crop dependent

 

Cane and tree fruit

raspberry

blackcurrant

apple (culinary and dessert)

edible pears

 

packhouse

kg

Crop dependent

 

[¹] Some sectors are interested in GHG emissions in terms of nutritional content. This will be discussed with the contractor

Work Package 3: Mitigation

  1. Assess the potential of carbon storage sinks within a range of typical farming scenarios. These will include soils, hedges, woodland and other landscape elements.

  2. Provide a range of options for achieving Carbon Net Zero goals in terms of:

    1. Reducing GHG emissions

    2. Carbon sequestration

    3. Innovative products and technologies

    4. Other approaches

We are seeking tenders from research institutions who can:

  • Manage the project and input to obtain relevant specialists and expertise from across the industry to deliver the project.

  • Deliver a brief overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken and provide all key references.

  • Provide detailed analysis of results accompanied by charts and illustrations as appropriate, including gaps identified and recommendations for future work.

  • Identify key messages regarding the GHG footprint of UK production systems relative to those of key competitors.

  • Characterise the main field crop production systems in the UK for their current carbon efficiency, with particular emphasis on rotations

3. Additional information 

Together, this information will provide us with an overall picture of carbon management within  the UK’s cropping sectors. This will facilitate our ongoing mission to: 

  • identify the best available evidence for how farmers, growers and advisors can develop sustainable businesses

  • translate evidence into accessible and actionable materials

  • support decision makers in using evidence to improve the sustainability of the industry

  • identify data owners and potential research partners

  • address gaps in the evidence base by conducting and supporting primary research and/or encouraging other organisations to do so

4. What is not wanted 

  • Discussions about differing measurements and tools for greenhouse gases.

  • Consideration of issues related to food security, diet, human health – although impacts on these may be commented on.

  • An assessment of the strength of evidence, cost and effectiveness of the practice

  • Narrative summaries for each practice

  • Information on supplementary objectives

5. Deliverables

  • Produce the Summary report as a concise, clearly presented document in MS Word format, providing key data, charts and key messages.

 Charts, tables and any infographics must be also be provided in additional separate files.

6. Timescale

The project will last no longer than three months, irrespective of the number of work packages awarded to the successful contractor all three sectors together. An interim update will be submitted after four weeks

7. Budget

Total budget available is £45,000, and we encourage quotes for each work package to be below £15,000.

8. Structure of quote

Please use the AHDB Research Application Small Form to submit your Proposal.

You should include:

  • How you intend to address the project objectives and deliverables

  • Timelines and milestones

  • Details and capabilities of the team that will conduct the work

  • Details of subcontract/other organisations you will work with to achieve deliverables

  • Evidence you or your team have completed similar or related work

  • Proposed budget

  • Your contact details

9. Evaluation and award of contract

All bids will be scored against the criteria shown in the table below. 

Quality and relevance of proposalScope of the work and value for moneyExperience and expertise of bidder

0

No response is provided or the response fails to answer the RFQ

0

No response or price not clearly linked to milestones, activity, or resource

0

No relevant experience for this tender, or no evidence provided

2

The response significantly fails to meet the standards required, it contains significant shortcomings and/or is inconsistent with other bids

2

The response contains significant shortcomings, and it is very inconsistent with the other bids

2

The response contains significant shortcomings relative to other bids, and CVs lack evidence of sufficient expertise or experience by bidding team

4

The response falls short of achieving the expected standard in a number of identifiable respects

4

The bid falls short and it is not clear how the costs and resources available will deliver the project

4

The bid falls short, with poor fit for the elements of the team that will deliver this work. Over-reliance on one or two key people to providing oversight and ensuring the contracted outcomes are met

6

The response partially meets the requirement and provides certain relevant information, but is lacking or inconsistent in material respects

6

The response meets some of the bid requirements, but there are risks, or additional costs that may materially risk the project being delivered as planned

6

Some experience of delivering this type of work. However, the team lacks sufficient support/experience at all levels. Over-reliance on early career expertise to deliver the project, with insufficient oversight, or time dedicated by more experience team members.

8

The response meets the requirement in most respects, but is lacking or inconsistent in some minor respects

8

The response meets the majority of the requirements, but there are some minor delivery risks or inconsistencies linked to the project, that may not materially impact planned delivery

8

A strong mix of support with relevant experience, a good track record of peer reviewed work, but weak evidence that this work has been converted from research to commercial reality. May have some IP/Products/Services that could be relevant to the project

10

The response meets the requirement in all material respects and is extremely likely to deliver the required output/outcome. Plus is contains a number of innovative solutions/outcomes

10

The response meets all the requirements, has a clear and transparent costs, which are reasonable and necessary

10

A strong mix of support with relevant experience, a good track record of peer reviewed work, and work that has been converted from research to commercial reality. In addition, the organisation brings with it additional IP/Products/Services that will enhance this project.

10. Tender submissions

The closing date for applications is 12:00 on 1 April 2021

Applications should be submitted to research@ahdb.org.uk.

Submissions will remain unopened until after the closing date and time has passed.

11. Timetable 

 

Deadline

RFQ circulated

12 March 2021

Last date for contractors to ask clarification questions (suppliers are required to register their interest with AHDB in order to receive clarification information)

26 March 2021

Deadline for receipt of submissions/quotes

1 April 2021

Notification of intended award of contract¹

9 April 2021

Contract commencement¹

23 April 2021

¹Please note these timescales are approximate and may change.

12. Additional information

13. Terms and conditions of participation

AHDB Terms and Conditions for Research Funding Agreements shall apply to any contract awarded as a result of this request for quote.

14. Questions & Answers

If you have any questions relating to this request for quote please sybmit them to research@ahdb.org.uk. the deadline for submitting any questions is 12:00 on 26 March 2021. All questions and answers will be anonymised and published.

 

×