ML19262B870
| ML19262B870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Kenneke A NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262B859 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-082, SECY-79-82, NUDOCS 8001150507 | |
| Download: ML19262B870 (10) | |
Text
,
- m.,, m.
...,...i-ww w.vne vviemiewivn 7 RPf '.- l WASHING TON.' D. C. 2CEIS e
4,s September 11, 1979 "EP.DRANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Co=nissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Ccamissioner Bradford Comie i r Ahearne FRC"i:
A1 -. ke, Acting Director, OPE SU5 JECT:
DRAFT RFP FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY x
Farsuant te my memorandum of August 29 on the ab:ve subject, I am enclosing for y:u review and cor:nent a rouch draf t of the eie ents of an RFP for a management s% dy of the Cen:.ission, specifically, a draf t of the "Descriotion/ Specifications" sSc:1:n ar.d a draft list of criteria (without wei; hts) for evaluating centract
- c :sals.
Our purpose at tnis juncture is to provide a basis for further C:--issien discussion to.each agreement in prin:iple of the topics to be included
'. the final RFP and of the criteria that mi;ht te utilized for judging proposals.
- .: this point, we would postulate that the period of the study should be a:: eximately six months af ter the contract is awarced. Any longer wculd not be res::.sive to the perceived i=nediate need fer such a study.
It is not yet feasible
- estimate the precise level of manpower effort needed until the specific tasks to te cerformed are more clearly defined.
H: wever, it see.s to us that a substantial s'f:r: or. the orcer of 5-10 man-years of technical suppert at a total cost of 5375,X0 - 5750,000 will be needed.
'if t, respect to establishing a Source Evaluation Board which would assist in the
--* =-=-i:n of a final RFP, we would envision a f:ur : ember Board censistin; of re: esen;atives cf OGC,2 SECY, ADM, and OPE.
If y:u acree with :his pr: posed esen ati:n, these offices would n:minate a:pr::riate individuals fer y0ur i:
1:: :nl.
e :s!' eve a Cc=-iscion meeting on this subje:: is hichly desira.ble.
As n:ted in my C.ij 11,1979 me o, you shculd decide whether the discussion meetings should be ocen (OGC believes that a decision to close c:uld be based on Exemption 2.)
- .:s e:.
?:l'.csing your discussion, we would expect t: circulate a revised draft RFP and we v:c'.c work :losely with the Division of Contracts to put together a final RFP cackage wnich would be submitted to you for approval.
OGC has no lecal objection.
E.:1:sures:
's Stated
.ecr.ard Bickwit Sam "hilk
_se
. cossica 1921 085
,an 0:noghue ne (BEE) '
~~
~ '
o g
g d
s Ac u.-
m 8 0 01 1 s 0 f C '7
DRAFT RFP FOR E'MGEMENT STUDY'0F NRC
,Descriotion/Soe ifications Backcround The Nuclear Regulatory Connission has concluded that itn examination of the way it operates, in light of its over four-and-one-half years of existence, would contribute positively to the manner in which its public business is conducted.
It believes that Commission efficiency would benefit from a detached and dispassicnate s
. analysis, by a management consulting firm with the r'equisite qualif,1 cations and capabilities, of Comission functions, processes and procedures and its relati:n-ships with Comission staff offices.
One of the principal objectives of such a study would include identifying those res;:ensibilities which deserve the greatest attention on the part of the Cor.Taissio-itself.
This would iny,elve weighing and analyzing the competing demands en Comission time and res ur:es of such responsibilities as establishing goals ar.d colicies, resciving maj:r issues, adjudicating, managing the NRC staff, and maintaining relations with the Congress, other Federal agencies and the public at large.
Subsumed under -he foregoing would be an examination of individual CO rissioner cer:ections cf what issue areas are important versus those issdes ::
whi:- Commissior atter. tier is dev ted in practice.
This examination w:uld als:
focus on the degree of initiative appropriate for the Comission itself; that is, given its statuto.ry responsibilities, to what extent it should confine its role to reviewing croposals and reccmendations generated by the NRC staff, as op::csed to becomin; actively engaged in policy origination and tae day-to-day management of werk bein;. performed by the staf.f.
1921 086
Ths s.:dy 'at:uld also. explore how the Comission functions.
A key' aspect of this task w:u.d include an ar.alysis of whether the Cc mission's responsibilities are
~
dis:harged by seeking a harmonious consensus on major issues or by invoking the
- .:e;; :f t ajority rule to a greater extent than at present.
Relevant in this re;ar: is the question of whather the type of decision-making employed should va y cependinc on the functions being performed, e.g., adjudication, policy formu-ia-i:r., ruler.aking, etc.
\\
An:..e asse:t of Com-ission functioning that the skudy would address is its ef#e:t'vsress in developing and oromulgating agen:y goals and general policies.
7.'s s'.e. s ; cf :he study would focus on the clarity of comunications between the Co--issi:ners and the staf# and public.
Specifically,are Comission policies
':-f.ited so -hat they receive unambiguous interpretation and implementation by ths I:sf', a.d can be urderstood by the informed general public? Or is clarity a: :"ris sac ri' ice: in the interest of achieving a consensus with the result that g.':ar.:e :.
ce- ;o'.icies should be implemented is subject to varied interpretations tj : s sta#f. With esps:t to ec munications with the public, the study will e tt' _a a : Ese-t mit: o:s, with a view towards re::=ending possible improvements.
. : t - -.5 ;s.e l'
.ead'n; of how the Co=ission operates, the study would assess 2
I.:-
1::: s a: :ht e:a:ive contribution that staff : apers and oral discussions
- a. s ::..s cm.issien's decision-making process.
This would include an examination
- s-i:h.:de :f. :=ur.ications best serves to focus attention on the principal as:s:::
- a given isste.
The study would also censider the impact of the Sunshine A: :
iss'or cperations.
o**o eo a1a 1921 087 LED
=
A tundamental component of the study sould be an inquiry into the appropriate role Of the Chairman, both as the Comission's principal executive officer and s:okesman, including an analysis of relevant legislation and a comparison of the practices of other independent regulatory agencies.
Based on whatever conclusions are reached about the appropriate role of the Chairman, the study wculd also examine both the roles of the other individual Comissioners and that of the Commission as a collegial boo.
The study would also consider the advantages or disatvantages of the " lead-3 rissioner" concept and/or C0mbsion committees, consisting of two or three
~ T..issioners, to deal with specific issues and e :ergency situations.
- r.0ther element of the study would be an analysis of the functions of those E Offices attached directly to the Ccaraission, namely, the Office of the General
'cunsel,. the Office of Policy Evaluation,' the Office of Congrelisional Affairs, and r.e Office of the Secretary.
This analysis would cover how these offices are creser.tly used by the Commissien itself as well as by individual Comissioners, t
a.d develop recomendations es to how they could be utilized more effectively.
- r Hs regard, possibl'e functional or structural changes in these offices would
- e -igniighted, as appropriate.
tre s udy would further explore various personnel /acministrative facets of the 3 r-ission's operation, including both Cc missioner and employee perceptions of the Cc :nission's'performan:e in such areas as professional opportunity, working con:itions, and general exployee w:rk-related welfare.
- " ally, the study would take use of and incorporate, where appropriate, relevant
'.:ir;s from various other on-going post-TP.I investigations and studies of 3--ission coerations.
D**]D D p) ]( a lNl o o Ju oJ
.9..
.a
The study culd not a.ddress the functions and relati'onships of either the Executive Dire: tor for Operations or the NRC staff, that is, those offices of the Cc=issicn which report to or through the EDO.
However, in dealing with those subje:ts called for by the study, any necessary assumptions con:erning the funt:icns and relationships of the EDO and/or staff offices should be explicitly s ta ted.
If the functions and relationships of these offices, assumed for pur:cses of the stucy, differ frem current arrangements, these should be stated, but not evaluated.
\\
The contra::Or, shall provide the necessary personnel, facilities, and services fo a study cf the.ar.agement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the f;ilowing:
Task 1 - Ga-he-Oa a on N C : unctions, processes, Relationshios, and Relevan-pers -cel :-a:: ices The urp se Of this task shall be to collect information to serve as a data base for :ne cor.d:.: of the management study.
The Contractor shall establish a da.a base wr.ich shall include, but not be limited to agency responsibilities exercised by - e ::.-is s'on '.:self, individual Commissioner views on what matters ceserve C:- 'ssi: r, a :ter. i:n, :reser.: decision-making practices, the extent cf dsy-tc-cay manage e-
- n rol exe-cised by the C:mmission, modes'of communicatic i be:wes the Cc.--issicn ard the staff or ublic, Commissioner perceptions on the role of -he Chaiman ard on.he "i.ad Co=issioner"/" Commission committee" concepts for soe:ific tasks, the role on fun:tions cf HRC offices attached directly to the Co:-.ission, on various :er-inent ;ersonnel/ administrative aspects of the Commission c:e a:ior..
The centra: tor shall also make use of and incorecrate, where a:pr:;riate, reie ct.- f'., dings '-: varicus other en-going post-TMI investigations and studies of ::--iss':r ::erati:ns.
1921 089 D*"D
" 'D
~
E J A _1]bSL A
oe
The NRC' Contracting Officer's Technicai Representative will make al1 arrangements for.a: cess to personnel
- and records.
The Contractor shall document fully the results of this task, including documenta-tion of source material and problems encountered.
Task 2 - Assess Data Validity and Accuracy The purpose of this task is to assess the accuracy and validity of the data w
colle:ted in Task 1.
The Contractor shall verify data accuracy and validity by discussions, arranged by the Contracting ~ Officer's Technical Representative, with knowledgeable persons, in:iuding Commissioners and officials of apprcpriate ~ommission offices.
Every effort shall be made to cross check both where possible.
This task may run en:urrently with Task 1.
Task 3 - Findinas and Recommendations Tne curpose of this task is to set forth and d:cument the findings and reccmendations
- f :P.e s tudy.
Ease: upon the findings of Tasks 1 and 2, the Contrac or sha'.1 submit documenta-
-i:n se ting forth his findings and rec 0=enda-ior.s f[r each element of the study.
Tne documentation shall indicate clearly the organi:ational arrangement upon which re::cmendations may be premised if they differ from the current organizational stru::ure.
To the extent that the geographic separation of "RC offices impinge on any cf the recommendations of the study, this factor should be addressed in this
- ra.e.vork.
e e in erviews are to be, con:uc ec, Ine f : ats, data objectives and personnel
- te interviewed shall be fully specified in advan:e to t..e COTR along with the e-, dolecies which will be used to colia e and ana'y:e the interview data.
Thc
- .;es: ion of safeguarding the confidentiality cf interview re:Ords shall also be 3::-essed.
\\92\\
D90 D""]D *D'3M $
. 2d n.o e o ju o
Task 4 - Formal Presentation of Conclusions and Recomendations At a time, date, and place mutually agreeable to the Contractor and the NRC, 'ut not later than 30 days after the completion of Task 3, the Contractor shall provide the Conraission with a formal, oral presentation of the analytic results, fin:iings and recommendations of the study.
Format and content of the presentation shall be determined in consultation with the Contractor and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative following completion of Task 3
\\
Cocumentation The Concractor shall furnish d:cucentation on the effort performed in accordar.ce with NRC Manual Chapter 3202, " Publication of Unclassified Regulatory and Tect.nical D:cuments Prepared by NRC Contractors, Including Reports Prepared Under or Pursuant to :nteragency Agree.er.ts," attached hereto as Attachment and the follcwing:
M:nchly Letter Re: Orts Each mor.:h, the Contracter shall submit 11 copies of a brief letter report which su.arizes:
(1) the w:rk perf:rr.ed during the previous month; (2) personnel time exoenditures durin; the orevious month; and (31 costs data as follows: (i) for tr.e current period, (iil cumulative to date, and (iiil estimated cost to :ca;'eti:n.
A:d'ti:nally, the Cor. trac::r sb.all attach to the Monthly Letter Repor:s a c'e:liie:
a:::an of tasks as they are c: :leted.
gw D y 5
1921 091 e
- L w X on
~
be ::.s'dered i the evaluation of proposals and are' listed in desce. ding o-der c' " :o rtar.:e:
Weights A.
~-d'v"d;al nr.d Corcorate Exoerience and Qualifications
( ) points 1
E.r: erie ce and Ex:ertise of Prcoosed Project
(
)
-e:: e a.
Has t e offeror proposed a project leader
(
)
capab'.e of managing a complex project and of integrating the efforts of a multi-dis:f olinary staff?
\\
b.
Has t.e offeror identified persons who have
(
)'
t e necessary substantive knowledce of c gin'zational, management, and personnel
- -a:t'ces and procedures, and who have the a:i'ity to assess the effectiveness of a'. ir.a-ive a:proaches to discharging the f ar.:t'or.s cf an independent multi-headed reg.iat:ry agen:y? 'Do these people have
- e ca:tbility to evaluate the operating
- :: esses cf an agency, particularly with res:e:t to the decision-making p-ccess?
..as :.e offeror identified persons who have
(
)
the atility to gauge the impact of agency l et:s ship or. employee perceptions of 1;e.. sorkir.; conditions?
". : e'.1 : e: Ex:erience Of the Offeror
(
)
-a: -.e :#feror carried out similar studies,
- a - ' ::' a -if ir. :.e Federal Government, and
- :.e e r:erience with similar studies ir.volve
- i '..:"v'duais w90 would be assigned to this 5.
e: ":11 A:: cach
( }
+:.c t:'. c :V 2as the offeror satisfactorily addressed the e:;i e.e.:3 of the statement of work and dis-
- _IIed ::ssible methodological approaches"to
- + #:rrir_: -he w:rk that shows understanding
- -he e:uiremer. s and that is or sui:1clent
- _l:y a.d in sufficient detail?
Sf f d I p
. ]D D
~
eoM w.f b r-L, 1921 09c
Has the offeror de onstrated how its expertise and experience will be applied and how the proposed personnel can exe:ute the proposed technical approach?
3.
Anticioated Proble s
(
)
Has the offeror recognized and offered solu-tions to potential problem areas th=.t could arice during the course of the study, e.g.,
the safeguarding of confidential infomation collected during interviews?
C.
Management plan i
(
) points 1.
Level of Effort
~
~
(
)
Does the offeror's management olan indicate that the project can be cc pleted cc.petently within the period of perfcmance and within the cost?
2.
Resconsiveness
(
)
D0es the offeror outline procedures for project management's review of work in pregress and for coordinating with the tiRC Contracting Officer's Technical Represen:ative?
3.
Controls
(
)
Does the offeror provide f:r canace.ent controls to preclude contra:t cest crewth and keep the project en sche',cule?
T:tal c' All Weigt.ted acters
(
l pein s Relationshio of Te:hnica' anc Ccst Cer.sideratiens While cost is a less impor:an: fac:or than technical merit, it will not be disregarded in the negotiation and award of a contract under this solicitation.
The degree of-its importance will increase with the degree of equality of proposals in relation to the above factors on which selection is to be based.
Cost will be evaluated on the basis of reasonableness, validity and reliability.
A separate :est analysis will be performed on each cost proposal..To provide a ecmmor. base fcr evaluation cf cost proposals, the level of effort data shall be expressed in tan hours.
A final bes -buy anilysis will be performed, taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost analysis, and ability to complete the work within the 3cverr.zint's re:uired schedule. The Government reserves the right to make an award o the best advantaga of'the Government, cost and other factors considered.
Award cf Cor. tract Award will be made to the offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government; ar.d who is considered to be responsible withit the meaning of Federal Procurer.ent Regulatio-1-1.12.
The 3cverrman; rese ves the right without cualification, to acceot or reject any or ai' :rc::sals, t:. ego-iate with any and all proposers regardless of the tent.s of the Original pro:::ai, and to request additional clarifying information either th cu;F w-i :en inf:r ation or throuch conference with the proposers. All pr::csers are n:-'fied that aka-d may be made without discussion of proposals and, therefore, propost's sPould be s.bm.itted initially on the most favorable terms, frc a c:st ar.d te:r.nical stand:c'n.
e k
m i921 094