ML20045G394
| ML20045G394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1991 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351B492 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-57FR61152, RULE-PR-48C20 AC01-2-015, AC1-2-15, NUDOCS 9307130296 | |
| Download: ML20045G394 (8) | |
Text
$ 0 o\\ - ?_
w3 9Gf2-d E 1 133I MEMORANDUM FOR:
Patricia G. Norry, Director Distribution:
Office of Administration DTi ktins ky NMSS r/f,
GBeveridge NMSS s/f'<
FROM:
Robert M. Bernero, Director WBrown PMDA r/f Office of Nuclear Material GArlotto Safety and Safeguards RBernero CJenkins WITS 9100539
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF FINAL RULE ENTITLED, " NUCLEAR REGULATORY NMSS Dir. Of. r/f.
COMMISSION ACQUISITION REGULATION"
~
We have reviewed the final rule entitled " Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR)" as requested in your October 2, 1991, memorandum. We agree with your statement that the most significant change to the final rule is the revised policy for the application of Organizational Conflict of Interest (COI) restrictions due to the recently revised policy approved by the Commission.
The revised COI policy restricts contractors from a) working on the same technical area for any licensee / applicant for generic task orders; b) working for the same licensee organization at the same site if the task order is site specific and c) work cn the same technical area for the same licensee at any site.
We believe that the COI policy stated in the NRCAR is far too restrictive and will effectively eliminate most potentially satisfactory commercial contractors from bidding on or obtaining NRC contracts.
Since the COI provisions related to task order contracts were implemented two years ago, NMSS has had considerable difficulty obtaining satisfactory commercial contractors. With the imposition of the new requirements related to COI, as stated in the NRCAR, the universe of potential contractors free of COI will be reduced further.
In fact, if the new COI provisions were in place at the time many of our current major commercial projects had been competed within the past two years, we would not have been able to award them to the contractors that were ultimately selected.
Based on the above, we believe that discussions on the interpretation of COI should be reconsidered because of the far reaching and obvious negative repercussions the present interpretation of COI will have on the NRC's ability to obtain qualified contractors to perform work vital to NRC's mission.
- %im i @ n d r c, a,, :,
~
Robert M. Bernero, Direc r Office of Nuclear Materia Safety and Safeguards OFC :NM55:PIB
- NM55:PIB
- NM55:PMDA :NM55 _
- NM NkM[$bT$ktinsky*$bbever$dgb*$Wbrown*
$b ) t[$
ro L
DATE :10/ /91
- 10/ /91
- 10/ /91
- l'2/jv/91
- 12// f31 see previous concurrence OFFICIAL RECORD COPY f
9307130296 930608 PDR PR ABC2057' R61152 PDR
')$
.! !.r.
Patricia G. Norry i Had we been given an opportunity to review the final Commission paper, we would have been able to express our concerns related to the new COI l
interpretation, and would not have concurred in the changes as contained the i
the July 9, 1991, paper.
Based on the discussions above, we are not able to concur on the final NRC Acquisition Regulation.
We also believe that discussions on the interpretation of COI should be reopened for reconsideration because of the far reaching negative repercussions the present interpretation of COI will have on the NRC s ability to obtain qualified contractors to perform work vital to NRC's mission.
I would be pleased to discuss this issue with you further at a mutually convenient time.
/
/
/
/
Robert /. Bernero, Director Offic'e of Nuclear Material yffetyandSafeguards DTiktinsky GBeveridge Q, b (, r c WBrown GArlotto RBernero pS yg; ifQ.x0aA WITS 9100539
$ a,z 7l l l:
f~,cJV i
(~l h !)
-(
/
/
5 0FC
- NM55:PIB
- NM5
- NM55
- NM55
- NM55
............<t......
NAME :DTikiMnsky :GBev ridge Bro n
- GArlotto
- RBernero bE$5bhkhb5
$5bhhhb5.5bhhhb5~$5b)hb5~~~$5b)hb5
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
=.
t* s v.
=._
1.
p 8.'%f V
)
i \\
n g
t' p
/
4 NT'
[7
.~
c;.'
a y
c
,< a 1,
w 3
[:1 j
j 'I h-f P
I ticle:ULlA_hGildlied_arnLliinese f or_Datl 24 y
- n j
Given that there is a f r ~quent need for contractors /subcontractorslicensee, vend 9
,'\\
]
l h
to NRC,
+
to have unf ettered ac-rising that access authorization and drug H
b, testing have not rec cd substantial attention in the proposed s; i Ql, q
of facilities; it is 0
final regulation.
Failure to address this generically in the ragulation could result in protracted specific contractual actions
~ )'$ '
d licensees, vendors 7.j delaying and unnecessarily burdening the NRC, 1
4:
e eiT l
and contractorn/ subcontractor.s.
J."
j y
i EG2I.11P9_EeCoGUT321ts _BAnde y
The proposed final rulemaking package states that, "The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to including the time for reviewing j
d instructione, m rching existing data
- sources, gathering and 0
average 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> per response, and completing and reviewing the j
.d
- aaintaining sta neeced,This appears to grorely underestimate arcation."
li with
$)
col] action -
.;ordkeeping burden associated with comp y ng
~
d the reportir and its associated guidance.
3 the regulai'on, Ques ~ ions con:crning NPR'a ec=ments on the proposed final ca 4
- 1d be referred to Harold Polk, X21264.
?!
regulatier h
y,,., ) / + ) ylI
/
~
yw M
- Frnk P.
Giller;ic, Director
.y ti g
Policy Development p
J)
Prtgram Managocent, 6
B and Analysis Staff
[N d
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
s off1.
Y d
\\
d
, ;\\.f c,
T.
Murley G
A 3
9 Y.
Miraglia d)
W. Rusacli 4
J.
Partlow
(
'. 3 t
p d
D. Crutchfield 4
M a
E 5 y
w.,
Q r_
',Q i
-)
)
y.
[*
}.
h y
]
\\
i b
i.
E s
\\
k.
q s
p h
\\
M$
fj j.
G 1
[..
Ih g
)u eif k--
d N
q g
7,- -
m,
[(no/-~>
,. 1 r...
t, s.,..
? #dt
'4
'eu am.
- [ j 1lI
~-
g, one U. S.
frUCLIAE REGULA!0F.T C OM21IS.Q ON f9
.} l
~
I nmQ v.c.1555.'
~1 nd:
~
~
Ngh;py3,,-= c.-
FACSIMil.E TRANSMi.~4 ' '.,FiEOuEST un yspe orucmar,to sr.neex s
.4.
- . h,=.-
Q,,l Q
y..,
p l' y* *r. % -
x..
Yg3,...;;;
.}
f bec
-...3
' ?'..,,f?,;_
=0_-s f.
med T.--
3.,. _ _ y-.
.f.
.. 7.,,.
,y s
wy.
t nwargen vmne nc..
(no.cv rsarsamtes:,,y kr, r~ q.
4;..
y rl,.y, n..
, ro.,.u wn_es, nc_x=
~.;x.
..w;
-i
.=.
- a.%%:. Aum
?c e ym O OJ/w' E -Qse gyg _ 77.qg u es u ca.n em 1-
, veArricar:en Pmene no.
nm e r-one nc.
f, da
>/ a-co oco
- G I o c,^,492.st:0 a c 2 -ILU.
A c t - m A.
cctmn j = w * \\ =1 * -.c r. e: s 2,j u t g,,.
, n e ew e.ne P W% ldl ///8 H lC. '
d,' i~,"
~"""
1 y,,
- t. 4 cm Tn.::n nTT G Q
. w N
C1, Ch "C 3 x
/'
~ k, Y.. /J.
A LLuMk.]
4
,e
+4 j ;/__
,A_jf2 0 /h lL.
J g,
_{}
(.
,hg k
b
~
~.
,dAI J
(.-
(,,
ff (
o
- 'e
=,.,
'*I r_ '
{.
%A
_ f_Q
'e
()f' O
k s
ba-e i
(
e=
bw) l\\
O;
/ ;
i
\\
im
..N N
N x.
fl
[--
- > g_
w k
+
. m
y ic <i 1
':i 21 8dn :
4 '
p ZJ
(
(a) A Source Evaluation Panel (SEP) shall ovaluate reposcla in 6
dheHom accordance with the solicitation technical evaluation criteria, eest, ed a <.7 b
vi shi strHehe&ip. The SEP prepares the Compet tive Rangaj f Q W (~'
SPL na<%.!.
OwM W
.W h port for the review an8 approval of the De gnating r
, re.
e g
Official. /The contracting officer uses this technical evaluationgin determining the competitive range.
e1 Y
w npy7Q e
M e/n,,oe ehtd,'
hk i
(b) The Designating Official (ap,ointed by the requesting offi e) is responsible for appointing the SEp and is responsible for conducting an
'(
independent review and evaluation of the SEP's two primary products after 6 N
(
f proposal evaluation: the Competitive Range Reco Report and the Final Evaluation Re n Report. Any cancellation of solicitations T
f and subsequent rejection of all proposals cust be approved by the Head of I
the Contracting Activity, i
2015.610 Written or oral discussions.
i
)
i I
Tne contracti_ng officer shall point out to each offeror within the i
coepetitive range any deficiencies including ambiguities or uncertainties in its proposal.
The discussions are intended to assist the SEP in fully g
bo4Ah Y (s "g; 'sy i understand,ing the preposals and their strengths and weaknessesA y
h ::Icn:
M M
effo assuw { hat the connings and points of e::phasis of solicitation e u h.
oah I provisions have been h
ately conveyed to the offerors so that all offerors are competing i
equally on the basis intended by the Govern =ent.
m 62015.611 Best and final of fers.[
p V
73
)
l I
1
n atsan m A zT 2
/ '
with offarors relative to any aspect of the acquisition.
The contracting 4
4 officer may include other personnel in discussiens, as necessary.
52015,605 Evaluation factors.
The evaluation criteria includad in the solicitation serve as the i
l standard against which all proposals are avaluated, and are the basis for 1
the development of proposal preparation ins t ructions, in accordance with l
$2015.407-70(b). Indication in the solicitation of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors is accomplished by the assignment of a numerical weight to each.
For those factors that will not be numerically weighted, only their relative importance will be stated in the solicitation.
Examples of f actors which may net be numerienlly weighted are conflict of interest, estimated cost, and business evaluations, and "go/no go" evaluation factors, I
l
$2015.607 Disclosure of mistakes before award.
5 (a) 7te contracting officer shall require that the offeror's clariff ention(s) provided in accordar.ce with FAR 15.607 be in writing.
(b)
A corzection of a mistskn in a proposal ray be cade or.ly af ter a written detereinntion to permit it has been ende by the contractirg officer.
f
' 2015.008 Prcrosci evaluation.
72
h g~d I Qf 3
W j
s Off 0
V l(
S.
)
y S
e v,,,
q we
- s w
i j
industry if they engage in a contract Vith the NRC.
The operative T
1 words are "in the cane arca tc any organizatjon regulated by the
,% H j
NRC," for paragraph (1) and " contractor provides advice to the NRC i'
M cn the same or sinilar rattor in which it is also providing 1'
s H
assistance te a_ny organization regulated by the NRC," for paragraph (11).
In eccence, this rule requires the contractor to only Work l
j for the NRC and no others.
While this isolation of contractors may P
j te ideally desirable, it is very lititing.
Ji The qua li flod contractors / subcontractor 3 in the technical fields of interest to NRR obtained cost of their exportise by participating 1
in design and analysis work for the nuclear industry.
Since the pool of contractors / subcontractors qualified to perform the expert a
technical assistance cought by the NRR are also providing the
!4
- j nuclear industry with this same expertise, the competition for, d
their services can become acute and the contracters/ subcontractors r
cannot cperate a !inancially successful business on only the work
{
contracted with the NRC.
If NRC is to require that NRR p'
contractors / nubcontrectors refrain from participating in contracts with the regulated reactor industry, then the pool of ccrpetent centractors/ subcontractors available to NRR will dininish to the point that NRR will no longer be able to obtain qualified c o=e r c i a l technical assistance.
The more qualified f
contracters/ subcontractors will perform work for the nuclear industry and the NHC will not be able to obtain the services of these best qual 2fied contractors / subcontractors.
This point
{-
alrosdy hab been recently demonstrated by contractors refusing to i cn potential contracts that contain clauses similar to those in f
c*
. 0 0 9. 5 O - 3.
This could be the beginning of a long tere j
Jg:
i
,p centractorc/cubcontractors be nodified to a;icw work ior the
' [3 lents that the restrictions on the small pocl of qua';;;ed Fri e
p nuclear industry but, not allcw work in aren
. are the contractors
+
s L'
nay be rcv uwir.g ;ts own work.
g U
g Wly_Silling. f CLCenj a_c t;orje ry_ig e s 1'
It is surprising that this natter has not received substantial F
-," I attention in the p
,osed final regulation a nce, as reported by Lb d
h' the GIG, licensee fee billing requires NRC tc be more pronpt with b
J its billing of licensees f or docket related work perf o:.ed by both h
(<
NRC and contractord/Suc0cntractors.
Further, the (DC committed OC F
[
and ADM to irprove the timeliness of ascert ning NRC costs-(including centractor charges) end approp m ately billing such costs n
O to licenseen prenptiv..
Mp 4
,3 k
}n f v
\\3
\\
m lb i
i in
- y m..
h.
,_\\
o i
b e
4 d
,h ll
)
~
~
N
c ctaan' 4
fM
]
est c.nd final offers. &
The SEP evaluaton th Proposals will be recorded and rerar$g by the SEP, as appropring)and a final Evaluationh %
f. L R C f's P.a. 2=
- =' :-y a m[ &
.&e m edethn R m r f11 be prepared and forvahfad to We Designating *
~
Of ficial for review and approval prior to submission to the contracting officer for final approval. The report will include a sursary of the Tebd technical analysis of costs as a part of the analysis of proposals. The SEP's individual evaluation worksheets and sumary scor/.
e sheet must accompany the Final Evaluation Recccreendation Report and will become part of the official f11e.
1
$2015.612 Scurce Evaluation Panel structure.
(a) For all proposed contrncts with total estimated values in excess I
of $25,000 ar.d expected to result free coepetitive technical and pricc/ cost i
negotiations, the cooperatis e review ef forts of technical, centracting, and other adtr.inistrative personnel are formalized through the establishment of a 11 1
SEP.
4 (b) Tha SEP includes (1) at least three technical eembers (one of whco I
serves as the ch$1rperson) who porticipate in the scoring of proposals using weighted evaluation criteria ar.d evaluating proposals using other unweighted factors, ar.d (2) a contract negotiator who ensures that procurement rules and regulations are followed, ensures that the integrity of the process is enintained, and negotiates the contract on behalf of the NRC.
E.xcept in unusual cases, the SEP should not exceed five rnetbars including the Chafrperson.
The technical members are usually crployees of the NRC program office initiating the reque st or other NRC aeployees with expertise in areas O
74 1