ML19318C102
| ML19318C102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1980 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| SA-ECA, NUDOCS 8006300647 | |
| Download: ML19318C102 (8) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
s ka sisg,
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t,,
,/
JUN 3 1980 9
Ref: SA/ECA g,,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mary Jo Mattia, Chief Admiristrative Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of Administration FROM:
G. Wayne Kerr, Designating Official
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL EVAliATION REPO.RT RFP NO. RS-0SP-80-304 ENTITLED,
" SAFETY ASPECTS OF INDUSTRIAL. RADIOGRAPHY FOR STATE REGULATORY PERSONNEL" Attached is the Proposal Evaluation Panel's report for the subject RFP.
It recommends that written clarification be requested of two offerors who have submitted proposals judged to be in the competitive range.
I concur in the recommendations and request that action be taken to implement them.
G. Waynk wrr, Designating Official
{< /
Y ^5?-1.
Attachment:
y Consensus Reports g
L 8006800hh
Source Evaluation Panel RFP No. RS-0SP-80-304
'k,. -
A' 5
fo EdgfC.Ashley,Cha[ man
/ oge towAM-64/r#
Joel 0. 14benau g
1,,
oate fR bert J.' DodasL J/%aw
.s -ro - a, Date t
s a
.a RFP No. RS-0SP-80-304-Contractor.
'/
Average Score Proposed-Cost-(,..
- 1. : Louisiana State University 91
- - $31 ',834 2,
Gamma Industries 89
$17,432
~
3.
Petroleum Training and 40-
' $70,886.
Technical Services 4.
Franklin Research Center 26
- $31,000 I
f t
O g
3, 4
6 g
9 4
O e
e h
a
.,m--
y
..--,r,
.+.---%
.g
~
-CONSENSUS REPORTS A.
LOUISIAllA STATE UNIVERSITY (1)' Proposed m6tbo'ds of meeting the requirements in the. Statement of Work (Part III, Article I).
Demonstrates good approach.
Sites previous and recent experience in giving this particular course. However,-source recovery exercise does not indicate hands-on practice by students.
(2) Technical qualifications and experience of personnel '(who will be teaching the course) as related to teaching the technical and safety aspects.of-industrial radiograp,hy described in the Statement of Work.
All lecturers have pertinent technical. qualifications and experience.
(3) Adequacy and Completeness of laboratories and equipment required to meet the objectives of the Statement of Work.
Except as noted below, laboratories and equipment are adequate and complete:
Issuance of dosimeters to all students during hands on radiography a.
practice is not mentioned, b.
Make and Model number of survey meters to be used is not indicated.
(4) Teaching qualifications and experience of personnel. (who will be teaching the course) as related to instructing others in the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
All lecturers have past teaching experience and qualifications as related to this course.
g Summary 3
s, The proposal is acceptable provided certain areas are clarified.
Clarifying Questions - TECHNICAL 1.
Are dosimeters going to be issued to each student as part of the hands-on radiography practice exercised as required by Part III, Article I, B.2.(2) of the RFP?
2.
What is the make and model number of each of the survey meters to be'used t
in the field exercises?
3.
Will hands-on practice by students be included in the source recovery exercise?
Clarifyino Questions - COST 1.
Verify each of the cost estimates.
O
.. B. ~ GAMMA INDUSTRIES
't. -
(1)
Proposed methods of meeting the requirements in the' Statement of Work (Part III, Article I).
Demonstrates good approach and understanding of the requirements for this course. However,.the sample final examination would not meet the requirements of the RFP.
(2) Technical qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to teaching the technical and' safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
All lecturers are technically qualiNud except for ~one individual.
lhis person, B. P. Pullen, does not exhibit any qualifications and experience in thc field of industrial radiograp).y.
Pullen d'oes not appear to be qualified to lecture on " Proper conduct of inspections and investigations of licensed industrial radiography operations and unusual occurrences" or " Experience with and case histories of industrial radiography accidents." Pullen is tentatively scheduled for these two lectures.
(3) Adequacy and Completeness of laboratories and equipment required to meet the objectives of the Statement of Work.
All laboratories and equipment are adequate tp fulfill the objectives of this course.
(4)
Teaching qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to instructing others in the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
O All appear to be qua'lified teachers for this course except for Pullen (see item (2)) and Weilen and Riddle.
Resumes for Weiler and Riddle do not include teaching qualifications and experience in the field of industrial radiography.
Summary The proposal is acceptable provided certain areas are clarified.
Clarifyino Questions - TECHNICAL 1.
Can the sample. final exam be altered to more fully, speak to the requirements spelled in the RFP Part III, Article I.B.2.(4)? '
2.
Can a qualified replacement be found for B. P. Pullen for the two lectures discussed in (2), above?
4 O
-. 3.
What are the teaching qualifications and experience (regarding the course subject matter)#of hessrs. Weiler and Riddle? This information is not included in their resumiis.
C1arifying Question - COST Verify each of the cost estimates.'
C.
PETROLEUM TRAINING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (PTTS)
(1) Proposed methods of ' meeting the requirements it. the Statement of Work (Part III, Article I).
~
1..
The proposal is inadequate in several areas.
There is a heavy emphasis on basic radiation protection and not enough in practical situations involving industrial radiography.
The purpose of this course is to increase and maintain technical competence of State radiation control personnel who are already versed in general radiation protection matters.
Field exercises and specific locations are not described. The agenda (instructional modules) does not incluue all the areas required in the statement of work such as technical aspect of industrial radiography, packaging and transportation, proper conduct of inspections, etc.
e (2) Technical qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to teaching the technical and safety aspects of-industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
No one is skilled in licensing and compliance from a regulatory standpoint in radiography operations. Backgrounds for Gooden and Evans are strongly oriented toward medical application of radiation protection. No information was given for Cameron. Dohnson is the only person qualified and experienced in indust,ria[ radiography.
(3) Adequacy and Completeness of laboratories and equipment required-to meet the objectives of the Statement of Work.
As noted in (1), above, specific locations and adequacy of sites for field exercises are not described. A radiography sealed source and device manufacturer is not available. All radiography devices indicated for use in the course are from only one manufacturer.
(4) Teaching qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to instructing others. in the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
Only one person, Mr. Johnson, is qualified and experienced in teaching others the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography.
O
3 Summary ic,...
The proposal is unacceptable and, in the Panel's best judgment, could not be made acceptable' for. award even by discussion.
i D.
FRAflKl.IN RESEARCH CEflTER
-(l) -Proposed methods of meeting the requirements.in the Statement of Work (Part III, Article I).
The proposal does not specify any methods of meeting the requirements.
No evidence is given of experience ip conducting a training course as described in the Statement of Work.
There is no coordination shown between classwork and field exercises. On page iv of the proposal it is stated that "A task team... will be responsible for: 1) Preparing a training course...; 2) Draft an agenda...; and 3) Conduct the required lectures..." These things should be in place now and not planned to take place in the future. The proposal as a whole appears to show a lack of understanding of the Statement of Work.
(2) Technical qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to -teaching the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
The resume for Modes is the only one indicating technical qualification and exp..rience in industrial radiography.
Several'resum6s were submitted for persons who will have nothing to do with this course.
(Their resum6s would not qualify them anyway.)
No person was identified as being skilled in licensing and compliance from a regulatory standpoint.
No resume was submitted for Rodipg.
- e..
(3) Adequacy and Completeness of laboratories and equipment required to meet the objectives of the Statement of Work.
Description of facilities at Universal Testing is' by reference only without adequate description. Nearly all of the facility descriptions at FRC are irrelevant to the Statement of Work.
No listing is made of equipment which would be used in this course.
Only a "pictoral" coverage of a sealed source and device manufacturer is planned and not a visit.
(4) Teaching qualifications and experience of personnel (who will be teaching the course) as related to instructing others in the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of Work.
There appears to be no one who has qualifications and experience in teaching others in the technical and safety aspects of industrial radiography described in the Statement of, Work.
O
s 5-Summary 9c.~
The' proposal is unacceptable and, in the Panel's best judgment, could not be made -
acceptable for award even by discussion.
Canflict of Interest The SEP has determined that no apparent or actual conflict of interest exists with' respect to these offerors' performing the required work.
Conclusion The Source Evaluation Panel believes the.tecMical proposals submitted by: Louisiana State University and Gamma Industries will meht the requirements of the RFP if the clarification questions are answered to the satisfaction of the Panel.
The. only wide separation in these two proposals is the cost estimates. These will be verified.
4 Ia 4
9 4
4 2
3 p