ML19338E666
| ML19338E666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/15/1980 |
| From: | Solberg D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Coleman H NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338E665 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-79-179, CON-NRC-4-79-179 NUDOCS 8010030529 | |
| Download: ML19338E666 (2) | |
Text
k '..,.
f(. hELr j.'.d f-730 _
h
(
i i
JUL 151980 l
MEMORAfiDUM FOR: !!arris E. Coleman, Chief Contract Folicy Staff Division of Contracts
~
FROM:
Donald E. Sofberg, Chief Systems Perfonnance Research Branch Division of S,afeguards, Tuel Cycle and Envirorr.cntal Research e
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF SCIENCE APPLICATIONS, INC. UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL ENTITLED, "A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE THE NRC UITH A REACTOR RADIATION STREAMING ANALYSIS CAPABILITY."
9 i
This responds to your memorandum of July 8,1980 on the same subject. I am the NRC project nanager on a radiation streaming contract with itsthematical
+
ApplicationsGroup,Inc.(llAGI')Contractf:uaberNRC-04-79-179. Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) was an unsuccessful offeror on the RFP for idifch
)
IMGI uas selected as contractor.
In fact, a comparison sho.fs that tuch of the current SAI proposal is identical to the original technical proposal, although the proposed scope of work has been changed.
Under these circumstances.
I do not see how this work could conceivably be considered as unique, innovative or present ideas which originated with the offeror. Thus the proposal does nat cect the first criterion set forth in your me:norandum.
One of the requirements of the' original RFP uas that the offeror devel'op procedures which they vould follow "to assure the validity of the comparisons."
Our purpose was to obtain some assurance that the contractor had not " fine tuned" the code and proble.2 input to provide a good ccaparisen of analytical results with experimental data. The SAI. response to this requirccent in the original proposals was unacceptable and is not addressed in the current proposal. The statcaent is cade on page 1 of the current proposal that the SAI-generated, methodology is,"a tme engineering ' tool' and as such should not require sophisticated changes and time consuming ' fine tuning' uhen calculatinc dose rates...".
This problem has been satisfactorily resolved with the MAGI program but wouTd be a significant unresolved problem with the SAI proposal since they are unable or unwilling to give the NRC any reasonable assurances that fine tuning will not or has not been used for
{
their analyses trith MORSE.
Tiis. I think, is a strong technical shortcoming of t
the proposal, The SAI proposal on page 1 referred to " excessive runnihg times to calculate dose rates" with the SAM-CE code suppl' fed to NRC by MAGI. There has been no complaints frco NRR that th,e running tima of the code is excessive. Perhaps
~
p j
o,, m.-
O \\OO D
3 w m e >-
m.
== a t
JR.,, m m=.....
=
==.
- = -
= - -
w cuomo
~~--- --~~
~
C6stributicn Dee 7
Y n
saj--
VV-b du
.5 o JUI.15 ILO circ chron i
'crris E. Colc.un Solberg rdg Darst l
l for on architect /enginecring fira that rcquired large r. users of these calcula-tions on a continuing basis, t.he additional cost of $50,000 to $100,000 for a l
tore officiently running code would be cost-effective. Ilowever, for the NRC I do not belicyc the expenditure would be cost effective, even if we did believe the unsubstantiated claics of SAI that lLRSE can do streaming analyses significant contribution to th. Thus, the proposal fails the test of raking a less expensively than SNI-CE. '
l e agcncy's utssion because we already have installed at I:RC a verified, ccceptable streaafng code. -
SAI claims SAM-CE has an unacceptable accuracy with " average standard deviations of20 percent (someashighas33 percent)." The NRC finds this accuracy to l
be edequate for our purposes. The nature of the streaming problem is exemplified by errors of orders of nagnitude in dose rates. Thus, codes capabic of calculating dose rates within a factor of two or three of measured values, such as SAM-CE, are acceptable. Additionally, this difference could be attribu-ted to ceasurement errors rather than calculational crrors. Independent, NRC-sponsored measurements at Itillstone II gave a measured dose rate nearly identical to the IMGI-calculated dose rate at the one location in comon to both. Thus, I b'lleve that the SAI proposal ' lacks technical carit because (1) it strives for cccuracy where it is not critical and (2) has not demonstrated that the Ski-CE or its app 1tcation is the source of crror.
De currcot SAI propral is bisically identical in scope cnd purpose to our original Rfp for uhtch l%GI was the successful offeror.
From this it should la obvious that there are no special capabilities, experience or facilitics that SAI or key proposed personnel have thich are critical to providing NRC with a needed streaafng analysis capability.
l I feel obligated to cdd one la'st com.:nt to this review. The NRC staff is very busy conducting the business of the agency.
I for one resent having to take l
valuable tice to review proposals by disgruntled, unsuccessful offerors which l
are alnost identical to the previous proposal. The SAI proposal is such a case and lacks the technical nerits and understanding of NRCs needs to warrant serious consideration by NRC.
I hope you will tell SAI to quit wasting NRC staff time l
untti they have scwthing novel and worthy of serious consideration.
If you wish to ccepare the cur' rent SAI proposal with their previous proposal, the latter can be obtaincd from Sharon F.'ollett or Ec11ogg l'orton, i
l l
Donald E. Solberg, Chief Systems perforr.ance Research Branch Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research P
Enclosure:
SAI proposal bec:
. Wollett, RCB, K. Morton, RCD, J. Minns, NRR, T. Murphy, NRR
. ~.. + -.
mm-
. 3RRS -
.Solberg:ih we 07./.14/80
-.. +........
_ ;;.y -
ryx o u r,.
%c r-mu a muw:e
............,....,................