ML19262B874
| ML19262B874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262B859 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-082, SECY-79-82, NUDOCS 8001150528 | |
| Download: ML19262B874 (13) | |
Text
[ 'g,.,.gg P.dCLEAR 3buLdTORY COMM!SSION
- d %e p/ 5
,r
.,a msam cTOn. o.c. 2csss s-
%.. s> =s y 4.....
October 29, 1979 OFFICE OF THE COMMISOIO.*J E R MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford
{
\\
/
\\
FROM:
John Ahearne (jv. [%
SU3 JECT:
COMMISSION M[AyAGD4ENT STUDY Attached is a revision of the October 15th draft RFP for the management
~
study.
Additions are underlined and deletions are dashed through.
The changes reflect:
(1) modifications that we agreed to at the last personnel meeting; (2) separation of the previous Background section into " Background" and " Scope of Work" to better reflect the contents of the section; and (3) deletion of the specific tasks, as suggested by Commissioner Kennedy.
The purposes of Tasks 1-3, which are revelant to defining the study, are stated in the Scope of Work section and the documentation-related tasks (Tasks 4-5) are included in the Documentation section.
Ed Halman believ'es this approach is better than the previous one.
I have inserted suggested weights to be used in evalueting the proposals.
To finish the RFP and select a contractor using our existing contracting procedures requires action by a Source Evaluation Panel (SEP) and Designating Official.
The SEP evaluates (with documentation) all proposals received and recc= ends selection of a contractor to the Designating Official.
Based on the SEP's reports.and recommendations and his own evaluation of -
the proposals, the Designating Official makes the final selection.
I believe there are two realistic alternatives for Commissioners participation in tne selection of a contractor.
1.
The Ccmaissioners could serve as both the SEP and Designating Official:
The Commissioners would be responsible for reviewing, evaluating and documenting the evaluation of each proposal received, and making final decisions related to selecting a contractor.
(This responsibility cannot be delegated.)"
2.
The Commission staff could constitute the SEP, and the Commissioners as a bcdy could be the Designating Off'icial.
Thus, the Commissioners would rely primarily on staff to evaluate and document the evaluation of the proposals and ma%e recommendations to the Ccemissioners.
Tne SEP would review and evaluate all proposals received and reccmcend U [
[A.b..
1921 til 9 8'
/.J
2 October 29, 1979 for Commissioners approval those contractors frcm whi.ch best and final offers would be requested.
After discussions with these contractors, and review and evaluation of their best and final offers, the SEP would recommend 2-3 contractors which they believe would be the most appropriate to perform the study.
The Commissioners would then select the contractor to perfo,rm tne study.
I believe that the second alternative would provide adequate Commissioner participation in the selection of the contractor and yet would not burden us with all the necessary paperwork.
Although the Contracts office ha: som( concerns about this approach, I recommend we proceed with it.
If you agree, I recommend that the members of the SEP be the General Ccunsel, the Dire: tor of OPE, and the Director of MFA.
Attachment e
1921 i12
~
Uc$obeN9 599 DRAFTRFPFORMANAGENENTSTUDYOFi;RC Descriotion/ Specifications
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that the Commission efficiency would benefit from an analysis, by.a management consulting firm with the requisite qualifications and capabilities, of Commission functions, processes and procedures and its-relationships with the Executive Director of Operations (ED0) and orincioal Commission staff
. offices. The basic purpose of the study is to examine the current internal manager.ent approaches and procedures used by the Ccamissioners to execute their re:ponsibilities and to identify and examine possible improvecents to the Com-issioners' efficiency and effectiveness.
Scoce of Work The contractor shall orovide the necessary oersonnel, facilities and services and collect the necessary information to serve as a data base for the eval;ation cf the exis ting internal management accroaches, crocedures and strutture used by the Commissioners and the develo:: ment and evaluation cf alterr.atives o these.'
Cne of the principal objectives of such a study would be to identify changes in currer,t canagement and decision-making methods and procedures which would allow the Commissioners to better al. locate the greatest atter. tion to thbse areas of prime responsibility.
This would involve
-ine tac Con:ra::ing Officer's Technical Represen:ative will make all arrangements fcr access to NRC personnel and recorcs.
1921 113
2
/
weighing and ana-lyzing the competing demands on Commission time and rescurces of such responsibilities as establishing goals and policies, resolving major issues, adjudicating, managing the NRC staff, and maintaining relations with the Congress, other Federal agencies and the public at large.
Subsesed-under-the-feregeing-weuld-be-as-ey.asiaat4en e f-i n di v4 d w a4 - Gesa4 s s 4 en er-p er s epti en s - ef-wh at-a rea s -ar'a-4ss er ta n t-ve rs e s the s e-a reas-t e-wh 4 e h-G essi s s i e n-a t ten t4 en-4 s-d eveted-i n-pra et4 ee-This examination would also focus en the varying degrees of initiative for the Commis:. ion itself; varying from confining its role to reviewing proposals and recommendations generated by the NRC staff to becoming actively engaced in policy origination and tha day-to-day management of work being performed by the staff.
The role and relationship of the E03 to the Commissioner would be defined and evaluated for each alternative management approach examined for the Commissioners.
The study would also explore how the Commission functions.
A key aspect.of this task would include an analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making methods that could be used by the Commissioners to discharge their responsibilities.
For example, the study would examine the Commissions' effectiveness in seeking a haraesiess consensus on major issues as opposed to invoking the concept of majority rule to a greater extent than at present.
Rele.vant in this regard is the question of whether the type of decision-making employed could vary depending on the functicos being performed, e.g., adjudication, policy formulation, rulemaking, etc.
Ano-her aspect of Ccmmission functioning that the study ::ould address is its effectiveness in developing, promulgating and follo. ing up -he 1921 114
a j
execution of agency goals, general policies and directions to the staff.
This element of the study would focus on the clarity of communications between the Commissioners and the staff and public.
Specifically, are Commission policies formulated and cirections given so that they receive unambiguous interpretation and implementation by the staff, give a sense of priority for allocation of staff time, and can i e understood by the t
infomed general public?
. Under the general heading of how the Commission operates, the study would evaluate ways to obtain necessary infomation to execute the Ccmmissioners' resonsibilities.
This would include assessing such factors as the relative contribution that staff papers and oral discussions make to the Commission's decision-making process.
This would also include an examination of which mode of commLnications best serves to focus attention on the principal aspects of a given issue.
The study would also consider th'e impact of the Sunshine Act on Commission operations.
A fundamental component of the study would be an evaluation of alternative' roles of the Chaircan, both as the Ccmmission's principal execu:ive officer and spokesman, including an analysis of relevant legislation and a Ccmparison of the practices of other independent regulatory agencies.
7or each role examined for the Chairman, the study would also examine t.cn the roles of the other individual Commissio'ners and that of the Commission as a collegial body.
Tne study -would also consider the advantages or disadvantages of the
" lead-Commissioner" concept and/or Commission committees, consisting of t..o or three Ccmaissioners, to manage the develcpment and addressal of s;ecific issues.
1921 115
4
../
Ar.ather element of the study would be an analysis of the functions of those iGC offices attached directly to the Commission, namely, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Policy Evaluation, the Office of Congressional Affairs, and the Office of the Secretary.
This ar.alysis would cover how these offices are presently used by the Ccamission itself as well as by individual Commissioners, and develop alternative recc.mendations as to how they could be utilized more effectively.
In this regard, possible functional or structural changes in these offices aculd be highlighted, as appropriate.
Finally, the study would make use of, where available and appropriate, relevan: findin;s from various other on-going post-TMI investigations ar.d studies of Commission operations and previous Ccamission management stucies.
The st';dy would not address the functions and relationships of the f!RC staff, v:hich re: ort to or through the EDO.
However, it would examine re functions of the EDO.
In dealing with those subjects called for by
-he study, any recessary assumptions concerning the functions and relation-ships of the staff offices should be explicitly stated.
If the fun-t;ons and relationships of these offices, assumed for purposes of the study, differ from current arrangements, these should be stated, but not evaluated.
1921 116
5
/
Th e-eentra e te r3;s.h a 44-p rev 4 d e-th e-neses s a ry-pers e e 9.e43 - f a s444
- 4 es s-a n d s ervi ces-fer-a-s tudy-e f-the-sa na g esen t-ef-the-Nw s4 eir-R eg uia ' e ry-Ge=s4 s s i en 4a-asserdanse-with 'he-fe44ew4ng' Ta s k-4---Ga
- her-9a
- a-ee-NRE-Fenetiens;-Precess es,-Rel a*4 e ssh4 es-- asd Re4evast-Persesse4-Peast4ees The-perpese-ef-this-task-shasi-be-te-eeidect-4efev itiek-te-eerve-as-a data-base-fer-the-eendset-ef *he-sanagement-study---The-Eentrastee-shadi es ta bi 4 s h-a-data-ba s e-wh4 e b-s h a 44-4 nci e ee--bs t-n ee-h e-44.=4
- ed-te-a g e n ey re s pens 4 b t,i ti es-exe rci s ed-by-te.e-GeRai s sien-i tse..e--e nsi vi de a, e,s==+.ssieser
- v. '7
- w.. : a =.. - W'a.. = *.- P. = * * = <. = - d = a. a < w a ^ a..=. 9. 4 = a 4 = =.- a *.*. =..a.
- 4 e a.. : =' 'a = = =
- d = 4 5 4 e a -
a - -
r Fre N 4 a j-p ra tti ses--t h e-eX tee t-ef-d ay-te-day-EEMa j'M SMt-t en tf e4 - ex erci s e s-by 'he-Ge3E4 ssieRT-F.edes-ef-teasdMi eit4 ea-estheta *Me-69==5ssieR-a'd-thS s ta ff-e r-p d bi 4 E 3-th e-s t a t h t eff-a M d-E9.5=i s s i e ?.e f-p ef f se ti e d s-S R-t h e-F e I S e,- E,n e-E,R SA "5aM s-th e-f ev, e-e *-? S =Eti ems-e? n,.:-e?"i ets -ai: Bid SS-dif es ts, v m.
ts-the-$eE=4 ss4 9RT-e?-etheF-pert 4 Ref.t-ES9ag E eR*-es pes *s-e!-Ehe-E95=4 s s 4 e3 epefa,ieR---t he-eeHEFEEter-s, ae,,-as, se-ESn, e-Sse-ef -whe*e-ava41aev e-aBe F
3 appfepF4aie--Fe4ef art-f4P.d4 Rjs-fre5-YaF4ebs-etht?-e -jb4Ej-pesi-IEi 4 Evest4.EE4ees-EFd-stSd40s-ef-ES.==4 ss4e A-e.ss EE4 ems-BRS :eFiv4 ee s-Es?=4s s 4 93 FaR agi.9e?.4-studie5-
^
Th e-NRE-Ge s tra et4 s g-9 f f4 ee r-s-Te eh a4 ea4 -R epres enta 44 v e-w? 44-sa ke-all arrangemeets-fer-aseess-te Persennes:-and-vesevds-
- nseve-ieteev4ees-eee-te-be-eenducted;-the-fevsats,-data-shf ess4 ves-and-pars esses t e-be-4 s t e rv 4 ewe d-s h a4 4 - b e-iw44y-s pe s4 f4 e d-4 s-E d v a =: e-t e-t h e-;;7;- a is a g -w? t h-t h e methsde4sg4es-W44sa-s?44-be-wsed-te-se44 ate-a-4-a=i4y e-t's 49tervies, data,- ;he
=
, -.. - 3 s e 2 a. 2,:
s - - c o- - : :.> =.,,: g,,,: 2 -. :- -,, -
,a
. - - -. - - u - -,.. - e
- - :-~
u-yos..,,,
-3 ee
=
e e
s
, a a... - a dHUPe33 5,
swD
- D'T I l eh.d bfu3]g2}7 g
6 Tha.cnntractor-shall-documeat-fwl4y-tbe-resw4ts-ef-this-task -4se4wding 3 d es um e dt a ti ca-of-s s u rs e-m a t e ri a l-a n d-p rchl em s-e n s o w at e re d, !ask 2-Assess-Data "a24dity-and-Assurasy !h e - p u rp o s e-o f-t hi s-t a s k-4 s - te-a s s e s s -t h e-a ss u ra sy-a n d-v ali di ty-e f-t h e data-solaested 4a Task-4, i + Ih e-Ce ntr a ste r-s h all-ve r4 fy-d a ta-a s su rasy-a nd-vali di ty-by-di s sw s s i ea s y a rra n g ed-by-t h e-Ce R tr a st4 M 5-Off 4 s e rl s -Ie s h R i s a l -R e p F e s e a ta t4 V ey-wi t h k n owl e d gea bl e-p ers sa s 3 -4 s s4 w di ng-Gesm4 s si s a ers-a nd-eff4 si a l s - ef-a pprsp ri a t e-Cemmi s s i e n-eff4 s es,-- Ev ery-effert-s h a ll-b e-ma de-te-s ves s e k e sk-be th-wh e Fe passible,--This-task-msy-run-sensurrestay-with-Task Ta s k-3--- 9 ev el es=e=t-a nd-Evai v a ti e s-ef-Alte rna ti v e s Th e-pe rps s e-ef-thi s - t a s k-4 s -to-d evel ep-a n d-ev al u a t e-a4 te rn a ti v e s-t e-t h e ex4st4ag-maaagement-appreesh -presessres-&sd-stFustare; 3 Task-4-- E4ndings-and-Ressamendat4 ens Th e-pw rp os e-ef-thi s-ta s k-4 s-t e-s e t-f er t h-a nd-d esw= eR t-t h e-f4 R d 4 R j s-a B d resG;me6datieas-ef-the-stud, f Based-WpGR-the findings-Gf-!a sks-4-aBd-2 -the-CsRtrastGr-shd?4-submit 3 desw=entatisa-setting-fscth-his-findiass-and-ressamendatiers fer-eash el eme R t-Gi-th e-s tu dy,--Th e-desumeRia t4 G A-s h a 44-4 R d 4 s a t e-G4 e a rly-t h e o rg a ni s a ti o n a 4 - a rra 95 em e nt-w p e n-wh i s h-re ss=m e n d a ti on s-ma y-b e-p remi s e d-4 f they-differ-frem-the-surrent-ergaM4 Eat 4G424-strustWre,- IG-the-eXteRt t ha t-the-ge sg ra phi s-s e pa ra t40 n-ef-NR O-e ffi s es -4 mpi ng e-e n-a ny-of-t h e resemmenda'tisas-sf-the-study 3-this-faster-shewid-ba-address ed-4 A-this fra=enerk-cn rm cn r D D D 9- }j #1l coJ oLTc_ll;A Q 6 1921 118
7 ../ -Ta s k - s ---Fa Faa l-F e es e n ta t ie n -o f-Ge neiu s i e n e -a n d -R e c e.?m en da t t en s -At -a -t i m e r -d a t e r -a n d -pla c e -mu tu a lly -a g r e e a bie-t o - th e -Ge n tra c t e r-a n d -th s -N%r-bwt-ast-bater-than-39-days-af ter-the completten of-7erk-4--the -GeatF&eter-shaki-previde-the-Sommistian nith e-formai-crci presentaticn -of the-::alytis-wesuits -findings-and-Feet.7meadatfeMS-ef-the-Study:- r x ^ E rm a t -;;d -es nt en t -e?-the -p resenta t ie a -shail. -b e -d e t e ra v se d -i a -e e n seitat ien -ai t h -t h e -Csatr-&st ap -&ad -th e -Osa t.casti ag -9 ff i ee r i.3 -Teekn i e31 -R epreten ded i n . iall;4 43-ss=pl stisa-s?-T+3k-4.- Documentation The Contractor shall furnish documentation on the effort performed in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 3202, " Publication of Unclassifiec Regula, tory and Technical Documents Prepared by NRC Contractors, Including Reports Precared Under or Pursuant to Interagency Agreements," attachad hereto as Attachment , and the following: Manchly Letter Reoorts Each acntn, the Contractor shall submit 11 copies of a brief letter report.vhich summarizes: (1) the work performed during the previous month; (2) personnel time expenditures during the previous month; and (3) costs data as follows: ,~(i) for the current period, (ii) cumulative to date, and (iii) estimated cost to completion., Additionally, the Contractor shall attach to the Monthly Letter Reports a detailed account of tasks-as-they-are ccmpleted work. 192\\ \\\\9 Final Reorit D * * 'D g fQ.] p 'gj,dudj]uy\\jyn W dJ su The Centraccer shall submit documentation settina forth his data (inc'udin: s i n c e '- v.alvsis. findines ae.d recc endations. The docu e-tation s 3" in ficate clearlv the crcanizational arrancement ucon *ich re e wdi+ r
8 j may be premised if they differ from the current organizational structure. Oral Presentation At a time, date, and olace mutually acreeable.to the Contractor and the tiRC, but not later than 30 days after the comoletion of. the final report, the Contractor shall provide the Commission vith a formal, oral presenta-tion of the analytic results, findinas and recommendations of the study. Format and content of the cresentation shall be determined in consultation with the Contractor and the Contracting Officer's Technical Reoresentative. e e O S 1921 120
Evaluation Factors for Award The following factors, with their relative weights will be considered in the evaluation of proposals and are listed in descending order of importance: Weights A. Individual and Corocrate Exoerience and Qualifications (55);oints 1. Exoerience and Excertise of proposed' Project (50) Pecole x a. Has the offeror proposed a project eader (25) capable of managing a complex project and of integrating the efforts of a multi-disciplinary staff? b. Has the offeror identified persons who have (25) the necessary substantive knowledge of organizational, and management,-and-pef 5 esses practices and procedures, and who have the ability to assess the effectiveness of alternative approachas to discharging the functions of an independent multi-headed regulatory agency? Do these people have the capability to evaluate the operating processes of an agency, particularly with respect to the decision-making process? Will these eersons continue to pla a / central role in cerforming tne stuay? 2. F. elated Ex erience of the Offeror (15) Has tne offeror carried out similar studies, particularly in the Federal Government, and cid the experience with similar studies involve the individuals who would be assigned to this s tudy? B. Technical Accroach (55) 1. Methodology (20) Has the offeror satisfactorily addressed the requirements of the statement of work and dis-cussed possible methodological approaches to performing the work that shows understanding of the requirements and that is of sufficient quality and in sufficient detail? F*hT w h &) 9)k u l9 0 Nk
2 / 2. Technical Understandino (.20) ~ Has the offeror demonstrated how its expertise and experience will be applied and how the proposed personnel can execute the proposed technical apprcach? 3. Anticipated Problems (15) Has the offeror recognized and offered solu tions to potential problem areas that could arise during the course of the study, e.g., the safeguarding of confidential information collected during interviews? '6. Tuna;ement Plan (25) 1. Level of Effor-(15) Does the offer 0r's management plan indicate that the project can be completed ccmcetently within the pericd of perfomance and within the cost? 2. Resoonsiveness (5) 00es the offer:r outline procedures for project management's review of work in progress and for coordinating with the tac Contracting Officer's Technical Representative? 3. Centrols (5), Caes the offer:r provide for management controls to preclude ccrtract cost growth and keep the projet on schidule? Total of All Heighted Factors (145) Relationsnio o'f Technical and Cost Ce isiderations 1lhile cost is a less important factor than techn,ical merit, it will not be disregarded in the negotiation and award of a contract under this solicitati;,. Tne cegree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of proocsals in relation to the above factors on which selection is to be based. Cost will be evaluated c.. the basis of reasonableness, validity and reliability. A separate cost analysis will be performed on each cost proposal. To provide a comon case for evaluati:n of cost proposals, the level of effort data shall :s e.< press 9C in manhours. D 'T l D *
- lDm AX~A 1921 122
3 .J A final best-buy analysis will be performed, taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost analysis, and ability to complete the work within the Gove'rnment's required schedule. The Goverrment reserves the right to make an award to the best advantage of the Government, cost and other factors considered. Award of Contract Award will be made to the offeror (1) whose proposal is.. technically acceptable and (2) whose technical cost relationship is the most adiantageous to the Government; and who is considered to be responsible within the meaning of Federal procurement Regulation 1-1.12. The Government reserves the right without qualification, to accept er reject any or all proposals, to negotiate with any and all proposers regardless ' cf the terms of the original proposal, and to recuest additi0nal clarifying information either through written information or through ccaference with the proposers. All proposers are notified that award may be made without ciscussion of proposals and, therefore, proposals should be submitted inicially on the most favorable terms, from a cost and technical standpoint. oN*o 'f b]Dj dLb dlgg4 e[ o *. a b6 1921 123}}