ML20028A102
| ML20028A102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1982 |
| From: | Lebo C NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028A083 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-355 NUDOCS 8211160417 | |
| Download: ML20028A102 (1) | |
Text
)
i MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Contracting Officer Administrative Contracts Branch
SUBJECT:
RFPA SECY-82-471 " STEN 0 GRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES" On December 29, 1982 John Hoyle, Secretariat, and I discussed the possibilities of cdiansing the1 procurement from a two year services contract to a one year services contract with a one year option. The reasoning in support of the DC's desire to change to a one year with a one year option w44h-ASc :ay they presented several favorable options.
First, it is believed that better prices could be obtained from stenographic reporting contractors because the contractors would not have to put contingencies into their one year bid to account for the year two prices.
Secondly, by using a one year period of performance, with a one year option, we should be able to have enhanced administrative control over the contractor. It will provide an opportunity to " keep them honest."
Contractors seem to perform better when they know that there is no guarantee to the second year performance, but rather the second year is a function of the performance, and the quality of the performance of the first year. And thirdly, the use of an option type contract could facilitate the elimination of a marginal quality contractor.
If a contractor is not performing to the highest standards necessary for the stenographic reporting of the NRC, we are not bound by a two year period of performance with a one year option. Obviously, we will always have the use of the termination for convenience or default, and stop work order clauses when performance under any contract becomes questiona k but with this type of co:itract, a one year period of performance with a one year option would sarve to make easier the administrative controls of ending a contractor's performance by the end of one year.
John Hoyle reviewed the matters we discussed and after consultation in l
the Secretary's office he returned my call to indicate that he concurred in our recommendation.
I advised him that we would mail an amendment to this solicitation on December 30, 1981 which would officially change the two year period of performance to a one year period of performance with a one year option period.
'f;'!,'.-
l
,A r
Craig D. Lebo, Contracting Officer Date'j Administrative Contracts Branch CDL:1cm c\\N_