ML19318C787
| ML19318C787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1977 |
| From: | Clint Jones, Mattia M NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318C786 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-69 NUDOCS 8007020287 | |
| Download: ML19318C787 (6) | |
Text
' y, '.,'-
(,'
(
,e O
June 23, 1977 PROPOSAL EVALUATION REPORT SOLICITATION RS-77-38 DATED MAY 17, 1977 AUDIT OF THE SUPERGRADE POSITIONS I.
SERVICES The Division of Organization and Personnel has identified a need to conduct a job audit of all existing and proposed supergrade and equivalent positions in the NRC in order to determine the proper grade level of the positions.
As part of the job audit, the Contractor shall conduct face-to-face interviews with the incumbent and supervisor of the position and an analysis of documents pertinent to the position under review (examples of such documents include:
functions and delegations in the NRC Manual Chapters; delegations of authority; letters of program direction from line management; Commission staff papers approving programs and assigning responsibilities, etc.) Where there is no incumbent in a current or proposed supergrade position, the immediate supervisor of the position will be interviewed.
Based upon the job audits conducted above, the Contractor shall conduct a factor-by-factor comparative analysis of the subject posith. 3 (using the NRC factor analysis evaluation system contained in NRC Manual Chapter Appendices 4130-A and B) and supergrade benchmark positions as may be provided by the NRC to be appropriately graded (approximately 15).
The Contractor must also assign points to each current or.propos.ed supergrade position on a factor-by-factor basis cofisistent with the NRC supergrade job evaluation system (NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 4130-B).
The points will be assigned td the audited positions. based on a comparison with the points assigned to the above' referenced sup6rgrade benchmarks.
If the results of the job audit conclude that a current (or prop'osed) supergrade position does not warrant evaluation at the supergrade level, the Contractor shall evaluate the position correctly by use of the NRC GS-1.through GS-15 job evaluation system set forth in the NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 4130-A.
II. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED PROCUREMENT AND EXTENT OF COMPETITION The proposed procurement action was publicized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) in accordance with FPR l-1.1003-1. Our advance sources sought announcement in the CBD on May 2,1977, resulted in issuing solicitation packages to eighty-eight (88) prospective offerors.
(:/
/
8007020981
.. '. ? ;
(
[
2 III. SOLICITATION AND AMENDMENT _
The subject solicitation was initially mailed on May 17,1977, with a closing date of June 10, 1977.
A copy of each proposal received was
- distributed to the technical evaluators on June 13, 1977.
IV.
PROPOSALS Proposals were received from the following'seven offerors by the date specified for receipt of offers, June 10, 1977.
1.
Cresap, McConnick and Paget 2.
Hay Associates 3.
Arthur Young and Company 4.
Albert Ramond and Associates 5.
The Institute for Manpower Management 6.
Univeisal Systems, Inc.
7.
Damans and Associates ~
'The proposals were opened, recorded and examined for omissions and variances from the RFP requirements.
~
V.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
,q,,
+
. Based upon the review of the contractual and organizational relationships described in the proposal of each offeror concerning'tlieir empiloyers or expected subcontractors on'this effort with industry' associations and suppliers, the Board has determined that an appare'nt or actual conflict of interest does not appear to exist that would prohibit discussion with any one of the offerors within the competitive range.
VI.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND ZONE OF CONSIDERATION
~
A thorough evaluation of the technical proposals.was made in accordance l with the pre-established evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and 8
graded using the evaluation weights established by the Board prior to the issuance of the RFP.
Individual technical evaluations were conducted by the technical staff,
of the Source Selection Board (SSB) and the results of this evaluation l' '
were discussed at the SSB meeting of June 22, 1977, to determine the competitive range. The competitive range was established at 'this time j
I \\
i
=- - -
f....
(
(:
j'.
c.
I 3'
~
i and a technical report was prepared and completed on June 22, 1977.
l' i
i technical report provides a detailed narrative supporting the
-Th s grades for each evaluation factor,for each proposal, pointing out technical deficiencies, strengths and weaknesses. The proposals were then tentatively ranked according to the scores Enclosure (2).
j-These grades and narratives were used by the Board to support its il findings and recommendations in the establishment of the competitive, range, i.e., those companies which have a reasonabic chance of being selected for award and those companies which are unacceptable.
. Although the solicitation provided for the possibility of award l
without discussions, none of the proposals submitted and evaluated by i
the SSB were found to be superior from a technical standpoint, cost It is within this framework that the and other. factors considered.
Board recommends to the Designating Official and Contracting Officer that oral. discussions be conducted with the following three companies:
COMPANY 4
1.
Cresap, McCormick and Paset
.2.
The Institute for Manpower Management 3.
Damans and Associates
.T e
e e
i e
w e=
e-
+---w-w y-
-
- g yy
-w--==-+gr 54-ee--*-
ww y-g-M--+'-
~.
(
(
VII. DISCUSSIONS It is proposed that' the SSB discuss the technical proposal with each of.
the three offerors within the competitive range"with the aim of improving each proposal to the maximum extent.
It is not the intent or i
i
-purpose of these discussions to make all proposals equal in content, grade or cost, but to provide a basis for the best and final offers which will be used to select the successful Contractor.
Discussions with offerors will include the identification of proposal deficiencies requiring clarification or further substantiation to support the offeror's proposal in the areas judged deficient.
Pursuant to FPR 1-3.809(b), an iudit review by the applicable Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) wit; se requested inasmuch as all proposals are in excess of $100,000. The NnC will conduct an in-house evaluation as to the reasonableness of the estimated labor hours and type of labor, material,' travel costs, and other costs as.related to the NRC estimate.
J The objective and prime purpose of the discussions is not to arrive at an agreement on cost, but rather to point out any weak areas wher.e audit and technical comments were received in a specific area to provide
~
a basis for the best and final offers which will be used to select the prospective. Contractor.
The cost factor was separately evaluated on the basis of reasonableness, validity and reliability, and was not included with the other evaluation factors as a weighted element of the evaluation.
Upon ' conclusion of these discussions, the Contracting Officer will request of each offeror a written "Best and Final" offer to be received by a common c ',
cut-off date.
+
VIII. SECURITY _
p...
It is expected that the performance of.the resulting contract will not
[
require access to classified information.
IX. TYPE OF CONTRACT AND FEE
~
The It is proposed to award a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract.
Findings and Determination supporting the use of a CPFF contract and the determination required that the fixed fees do not exceed those prescribed by agency procedures within the limitations set forth in the first sentence of Section 304(b) of the Act (41 U.S.C. 254(b)) shall be made prior to execution of any resulting contract.
~
.?
.. a....
g c
5, -
X.
NEGOTIATION TEAM e
It is contemplated that negotiations will' take place within two weeks after approval of the report. The negotiation team will consist of the following:
\\,
1.
William Dorie 2.
Greg Benoit 3.
Jerry Black 4.
Iloff Lockard 5.
Mary Jo Mattia XI. APPROVAL REQUESTED Based upon the information contaimd herein, the Source Selection Board reco. mends approval to, enter into discussions with only those companies listed under Pa.ragraph VI which have been determined to be in the competitive range.
XII. CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT COST OR PRIClriG DATA In accordance with FPR 1-3.807-3, the successful Contractor will be required to submit a certificate of current cost or pricing data as soon as practicable after agreement is reached in the total estimated amount of the contract.
t
,A
[,i.
e
.g e
s.,
}
c s
(
Source Selection Board
'14 *.
Qilliam Dorie, Chairman
, D M/
N Greg Benoi 1
-kf pry Bij/ck, ADM -
Mary Jo Mattia, ADM D.\\
w
' Noff Lockard, ADM
.f APPROVED.:(
) DISAP? ROVED (
)
~
AA A A m
]o
)
'Brehda Gardner, CON u L.-
b 7
y Calvin C. Jone6 irector Division of Or'gan zation & Personnel Ron Dixon,W
(
APPkOVED.'(
) DISAPPROVED. (
)
Mary do t1attia Contracting Officer E
t
.