ML20138A962
Text
. -. _ .. ._ _ _ . . . _ _ - ____ _ _. . __ . -._. __ -- . .__
I my g' -
CI' y
( g g
- A ~
g l
s JAN 161981 MEMORANDUM FOR: - Carl Sawyer SEP Chairman j
Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
. i FROM: Ellyce B. Miles, Contract Specialist ~I Technical Assistance Contracts Branch Division of Contracts
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS UNDER RFP.NO. RS-NMS-81-030
' " ANALYSIS OF SAFEGUARDS NEEDS FOR TRANSPORT OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE"
! Forwarded herewith are copies of each technical proposal received in i
response to the' subject Request For Proposal (RFP). Attachment I provides the name of each offeror who submitted a proposal. The evaluation c.
shall be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria as outlined in Part II of the RFP. Control of these proposals should be maintained '
so that only responsible personnel assigned to the panel have access to the material. The proposals should be treated as ADMINISTRATIVE CONFIDENTIAL.
i The business proposals have been retained in this office. Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the cost and management information will be l made available to the panel members.
The technical evaluation should be completed by ID
- using the attached Proposal Evaluation Form. Please have each evaluator rank the proposals technically as well as classify each proposal technically acceptable for discussions or unacceptable. If a proposal is unacceptable please have evaluators specify in detail the exact reasoning therefore. .
i-
} The. following conditions are to be observed during the evaluation: !
- 1. .The proposals including any reproduction or abstract thereof, are !
{- to be used for evaluation purposes only.
i
- 2. Disclosure of information in the proposals to nongovernment personnel ;
j shall not be made.
- 3. Evaluation of the proposals shall be made independently by the i - Panel members.
- 4. . ; All information contained in the proposals shall be used for evaluation purposes only. Any notice or legend placed on the proposal by either NRC or the offeror shall be strictly observed and shall be applied to any reproduction or abstract thereof. Upon completion of the evaluation, negotiations and subsequent award, disposition of the pr,oppals wil_1_ be ; determined _by the Contracting ,0ff_icer. _,; ..
8512120161 851112 PDR FOIA f h MILLAR84-682 PDR l
y, .
o ,-
r o( . - .
o o
- 5. Evaluators shall not contact the offerors concerning any aspects of the proposals. All questions, clarifications, etc. shall be directed to the Contract Specialist or the Contracting Officer.
- 6. All inquires received from firms submitting proposals shall be referred to the Contract Specialist or the Contracting Officer.
Please contact me on 427-4480 for any assistance that may be desired during the evaluation process.
Ellyce B. Miles, Contract Specialist Technical Assistance Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of Administration
Attachment:
As stated L
I r- ~ , .
ADM:DC
- - . . . ~ _ - - _ - - . . . . . -
..)
e,,,c, p i ADM i.................. ......... .. ..... .... . . . .. .. .. ... ...... . . .
.. me;.;EBMiles:p MJMah .. ].i. ..
/8I 1 I ont >l 1//6 . . . . . ./. . .\ . ./ 81. . .. . . .....
.....t...
c:vm . . : .sc. o ec O F F IC i L .' ' C id. D C Q? Y
j, i. (,
ATTACHfiENT 1 i i LIST OF 0FFER0RS i
(1) Advanced Research and Applications Corporation
- 1223 E. Arques Avenue .
[ Sunnyvale California (2) Battelle Columbus Laboratories !
505 King Avenue
. Columbus, Ohio I
(3) International Energy Associates Limited
! 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 1
(4) H&R Technical Associates, Inc.
j P.O. Box 215 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 (5) ERC0/ Energy Resources Company, Inc.
i 185 Alewife Brook Parkway Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (b) The BDM Corporation 7915 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 i (7) Science Applications Inc.
1200 Prospect Street
- P.O. Box 2351
.i La Jolla, California 92038
. (8) TASC - The Analytic Sciences Corporation ,
i 1 Jacob Way j Reading, Pennsylvania 01867 . i (9) ETA Engineering, Inc. '
415 East Plaza Drive Westmont, Illinois 60559 1
i i
l l
i I
I
___.______m._--____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ __-__---.-__._____.._____.___.____m________-___m...-__ _ . _ _ _ _ _
PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM RS-NMS-81 -030 0FFER0R TOTAL SCORE REVIEWER'S NAME SIGNATURE Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following factors with a maximum total score of 100 points.
EVALUATION CRITERIA WElGHT
- 1. Related Past Experience
- 6. Extent the offeror has demonstrated past experience 45%
in the areas of safeguards (physical security aspects), nuclear waste management, and radiological consequence estimation.
- b. Extent of the experience, education, background, 15%
and prior accomplishments of key personnel related to the effort.
- 2. Technical Approach
- a. Extent the proposal reflects familiarity with 10%
existing NRC policies and regulations gregarding nuclear material safeguards.
- b. Quality of offeror's technical approach to each 5%
task and the probability of success for the proposed project.
- c. Extent the proposal reflects the offeror's under- 5%
standing of the requirements as set forth in the I
Statement of Work.
m,. d. Offeror's identification of any difficulties and the 5%
!. rationale provided.to support the soundness and adequacy of his proposed solution.
l' e. Extent the proposal reflects familiarity with fuel 5%
i cycle concepts, especially concepts' for waste j disposal and familiarity with sources of information
, concerning plans and policies af fecting l these matters.
l l .
i I
O C EVALVATI0fi CRITERIA WEIGHT
- 3. Management
- a. Clear definition of the roles and adequate organization 5%
authority of the program manager and other key personnel to accomplish the defined tasks.
- b. Appropriateness of assigned project personnel to 5%
specific task areas and consistency of reasoning in progression and integration of the tasks.
TOTAL 100%
k' (f
- 1. Related Past Experience Maximum Score
- a. Extent the offeror has demonstrated past 4 5';
in the areas of safeguards, (physical security aspects), nuclear waste management, and radiological consequence estimation.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
C0!iMENTS:
(3) (.
- b. Extent of the experience, education, background, and 15%
prior accomplishments of key personnel related to the e f fo rt.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COMMENTS:
~'
c
- 2. Technical Approach
- a. Extent the prcposal reflects familiarity with 10%
Existing NRC policies and regulations regarding nuclear material safeguards.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COMMENTS:
. i, ) (
- b. Quality of Offeror's technical approach to each 5%
task and the probability of success for the proposed project.
STRENGTHS:
WEAR.NESSES:
COMMENTS:
. O ('
- c. Extent the proposal reflects the offeror's under- 5%
standing of the requirements as set forth in the Statement of Work.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COMMENTS:
(
- d. Offeror's identification of any difficulties and 5%
the rational provided to support the soundness and adequacy of his proposed solution.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
- COWiENTS
6 t
4 59
~ '
(
- e. Extent the proposal reflects familiarity with 5%
fuel cycle concepts, especially concepts for waste disposal and familiarity with sources of information concerning plans and policies defecting these matters.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COP.MENTS :
4
C
- 3. Management
- a. , Clear definition of the roles and adequate organi- 5%
zation authorith of the program manager and other key personnel to accomplish the defined tasks.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES: __
COMMENTS:
. i,
- b. Appropriateness of assigned project personnel to 5%
specific task areas and consistency of reasoning in progression and integration of the tasks.
STREtiGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
COMMEf4TS:
I O
Conflict of Interest
- 1) Bias or prejudice the results
- 2) Unfair competitive advantage with respect to other offerors a) Yes b) No COMMENTS: __.
Overall Proposal: Acceptable for discussions Unacceptable
()
() ,
i.
[ ^',
UNACCEPTABLE AVERAGE GOOD OUTSTANDING WEIGHT ASSIGNED 1.a.
1.b.
2.a.
2.b.
2.c.
2.d.
2.e.
3.a.
3.b.
Key:
UNACCEPTABLE AVERAGE GOOD OUTSTANDING 1.a. 0 - 13 14 - 25 26-37 38 - 45 1.b. 0-4 5-8 9-11 12 - 15 2.a. 0-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 2.b. 0-1 2-3 4 5 2.c. 0-1 2-3 4 5 2.d. 0-1 2-3 4 5 2.e. 0-1 2-3 4 5 3.a. 0-1 2-3 4 5 3.b. 0-1 2-3 4 5
o
/ tw ,
s s, ,
.s *
, ,, a . .,: .
k s .
t I
, REC RD OF TEl.EPE0tlE CONVER$ATION DATE Tlut
/
, rlx le n Isso s
be rztn) P E RSON cat.l.lNC--
__ P E_R SO N C Al l_E D.__ _
NAMC ' NAME e
.e* ., b Ly ( .[eg d'i $
da N iafLO
- ONOLo C our' ANY, AG E NCY, AND/ QM O tV, l C OedP A N Y, A tt edCY ,* A NO/ OR OlV. /
NM _ _ _
016(-(e._h Me8tM 'O N b s _.
C ALL LO F ROM e CALLED *T A
~
C ef v (#vve* A,. b## # A f#, STATE U. Clf Y J0 u.A S T A f_t A.
T E L EPHQf4C Nta. E RT. T E L E PM.QNE NO EX1.
s l
=>MAYd7d k? -
- -- =- h * $ h D h ,._ _.__. ~,.,
Suusr.c1 DescustEO -
- 4. Gg,c o,,:4,
- M *t3 ' 4 4 @t.; d AJa. c t, ou 4 Te.< y , r/c . g,n.,.g 8 - 03c l l '
- s
. g.
onece or oisc onseow - -
j h5tco Mr.. M r#
LP >un wo o w c 9M e s ' cr Woro sh L. ns.o $* sm m usuu mscrec (bo.g.s use l r,rac o wa '?M6 *Jcv , (b. t r..o roc a r t*,
no rPAce .3 e ) w,: cop ., c ,,, , /J e w , %
l 0.N fch T'k s 8's. 4 (
- Aup i't.L t. /Ete r. . ,
l .
1 l
l . .
~
, j , , ;
.. ~
l + .
He l- Action enopost s/nt6 Aant g, M0 0e t,aa oA'. e. o '* *c a cr^t * *' 7 ^ ^T T***' '" ' '"' '"' T' 4* * "'* "C "# 8 '"9
+
ef>44 W/ * "' # ^# "#'~"#'W "''#E'
} f,pi . r;.,. in,,.e~4 o,<a - m 'a r~ om . % .n, a nun , wa r ,r.w .
. i, , - , <n,a ,~ m. ,
D' % g
- e v l ,
s* .
l
\ lg
% f s l
- , t .
9
, t a p.
s # a
,n , ^7*
, . w . . ... . . . . . . . . . . = = . . **- - * * * * - * * * = .
f
%Y,$ . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . .. .
% e
., _. _ _ _____t_________-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _