ML19262B878
| ML19262B878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262B859 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-082, SECY-79-82, NUDOCS 8001150556 | |
| Download: ML19262B878 (8) | |
Text
[
'o UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.,,,/
\\
November 9, 1979 CHAIRMAN
/
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Executive Directo rOperatkions FROM:
Chainnan Hendrie Q
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MANAGP. DENT'5TUDY The Commission has decided to undertake a study of the internal managenent approaches, procedures, and structure used by the ConTnissioners as discussed in the attachment.
The Commissioners, as a body, will be the Designating Official.
The Source Evaluation Panel will be composed of the General Counsel, the Director of OPE, who will be the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (C0TR), and the Director of MPA.
The SEP is requested to begin work immediately to complete the RFP.
/
Attachment cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Cor issioner Ahearne CY OGC OPE MPA ADM ELD 1921 139 8o011so Es g
November 8, 1979
/
N DRAFT RFP FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF NRC Description / Specifications Backaround 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 principal Commission staff offices.
The basic purpose of the study is to examine the current intern &l management approaches and procedures used by the Commissioners to execute their responsibilities and to identify and examine possible improvements to the Commissioners' efficiency and effectiveness.
Scope of Work The contractor shall provide the necessary personnel, facilities and services and collect the necessary information to serve as e data base for the evaluation of the existing internal management approaches, pro-cedures and structure used by the Commissioners and the development and evaluation of alternatives to these.*
One of.the principal objectives of such a study would be to identify changes in current management and decision-making methods and procedures which would allow the. Commissioners to better allocate the greatest attention to those areas of prime responsibility.
This would involve weighing and analyzing the competing demands on Commission time and resources 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.
This examination would also focus on the varying de-grees of initiative for the Commission itself; varying from confining its role to reviewing proposals and recormiendations generated by the NRC staff to becoming actively engaged in policy origination and the day-to-day management of work being performed by the staff.
The role and relationship of the EDO to the Commissioners 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 Commission's effectiveness in seeking a con-sensus on major issues as opposed to invoking the concept of majority
- The NRC Contracting Officer's Technical Representative will make all arrangements for access to NRC personnel and records.
1921 140
2 rule to a greater extent than at present.
Relevant in this regard is the question of whether the type of decision-making employed could vary depending on the functions being performed, e.g., adjudication, policy formulation, rulemaking, etc.
Another aspect of Commission functioning that the study would address is its effectiveness in developing, promulgating and following up the 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 Comissioners and the staff and public.
Specifically, are Ccmission policies fomulated and directions given so that they receive unambiguous interpretation and implementation by the staff, give a sense of priority for allocation of staff time, and can be understood by the informed general public?
Under the general heading of how the Commission operates, the study would evaluate ways to obtain necessary infomation to execute the Cocaissioners ' responsibilities.
This would include assessing such factors as the relative contribution that staff papers and oral dis-cussions make to the Comission's decision-making process.
This would also include an examination of which mode of comwnications best serves to focus attention on the orincipal aspects of a given issue.
The study would also consider the impact of the Sunshine Act on Commission oper-ations.
A fundamental component of the study would be an evaluation of alternative roles of the Chairman, both as the Commission's principal executive officer and spokesman, including an analysis of relevant legislation and a comparison of the practices of other independent regulatory agencies.
For each role examined for the Chairman, the study would also examir.e both the roles of the other individual Commissioners ano that of the Comission as a collegial body.
The study would also consider the advantages or disadvantages of the
" lead-Comissioner" concept and/or Commission committees, consisting of two or three Commissioners, to manage the develo;; ment and addressal of specific issues.
Another element of the study would be an analysis of the functions of those NRC offices attached directly to the Ccanission, namely, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Policy Evaluation, the Office of Congressional Affairs, and the Office of the Secretary.
This enalysis would cover how these offices are presently used by the Con-mission itself as well as by individual Commissioners, and develop alternative recommendations as to how they could be utili::ed more effec-tively.
In this regard, possible functional or structural changes in these offices would be highlighted, as appropriate.
1921 i41
.The study would not address the functions and relationships of the NRC staff, which report to or through the EDO.
However, it would examine the functions of the EDO.
In dealing with those subjects called for by the study, any necessary assumptions concerning the functions and rela-tionships of the staff offices should be explicitly stated.
If the functions and. relationships of these offices, assumed for purposes of the study, differ from current arrangements, these should be stated, but not evaluated.
Documentation The Contractor shall furnish documentation on the effort performed in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 3202, " Publication of Unclassified Regulatory and Technical Documents Prepared by NRC Contractors, Including Reports Prepared Under or Pursuant to Interagency Agreements," attached hereto as Attachment
, and the following:
Monthly Letter Reports Each month, the Contractor shall submit 11 copies of a brief letter report which summarizes:
(1) the work perfrrmed during the previous month; (2) personnel time expenditures dur'.ng the previous month; and (3) cos's data as follows:
(i) for the corrent period, (ii) cumulative to date, and (iii) estimated cost to com0letion.
Additionally, the Contractor shall attach to the Monthly Letter Reports a detailed account of completed work.
Final Report The Contractor shall submit documentation setting forth his data (in-ciuding source), analysis, findings and recommendations.
The documen-tation shall indicate clearly the organizaticnal arrangement upon which recommendations may be premised if they differ from the current organi-zational structure.
Oral Presentation At a time, date, and place mutually agreeable to the Contractor and the NRC, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the final report, the Contractor shall provide the Commission with a formal, oral presen-tation of the analytic results, findings 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.
1921 142 ee o
em e.e e o e e og *
- 4-
\\
Period of Performance Performance under this contract shall begin on the effective date of contract and shall continue for four (4) months thereafter at which time all work specified herein shall be completed.
1921 143
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:
Weichts A.
Individual and Coroorate Experience and Qualifications (65) ooints 1.
Exoerience and Expertise of Proposed Project (50)
Peopl e a.
Has the offeror proposed a project leader (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, practices and procedures, and who have the ability to assess the effectiveness of alternative approaches 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 persens continue to play a central role in performing the study?
2.
Related Experience of the Offeror (15)
Has the offeror carried out similar studies, particularly in the Federal Government, and did the experience with similar studies involve the individuals who would be assigned to this study?
B.
Technical Acoroach (55) 1.
Methodoloay (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?
192i 144
2
/
2.
Technical Understanding (20)
Has the offeror demonstrated how its expertise and experience will be applied and how the proposed personnel can execute the proposed technical approach?
3.
Anticioated 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 infomation collected during interviews?
C.
Manacement Plan (25) 1.
Level of Effort (15)
Does the offeror's management plan indicate that the project can be completed competently within the period of performance and within the cost?
2.
Responsiveness (5)
Does the offeror outline procedures for project management's review of work in progress and for coordinating with the NRC Contracting Officer's Technical Representative?
3.
Controls (5)
Does the offeror provide for management controls to preclude contract cost growth and keep the project on schedule?
Total of All Weighted Factors (145)
Relationship of Technical and Cost Considerations While cost is a less important factor 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 cost analysis will be performed on each cost proposal.
To provide a comon base for evaluation of cost proposals, the level of effort data shall be expressed in manhours.
192\\
145
3
/
A final best-Quy analysis will be performed, taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost analysis, and ability to complete the work within the Government's required schedule.
The Government reserves the right to make an award to the best advantage of the Government, cost and otner factors considered.
Award of Contract Award will be made to the offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptacle and (2) whose technical cost relationship is the most advantageous 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 or reject any or all proposals, to negotiate with any and all proposers regardless of the terms of the original proposal, and to request additional clarifying information either through written information or through conference with the proposers. All proposers are notified that award may be made without discussion of proposals and, therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from a cost and technical standpoint.
1921 146