ML20138B371

Advises That RFP RS-NMS-81-030 Entitled, Analysis for Safeguards Needs for Transport of High Level Waste, Awarded to Bmi on Cost Plus Fixed Fee Basis

ML20138B371
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/29/1981
From:	Mattia M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Hansen A H&R TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Shared Package
ML20136E458	List: IA-84-682, Request for Procurement Action NRC-02-81-030,Rev 3,Mod 6, Extending Performance to 861026,to Analysis of Safeguards Needs for Transport of High Level Waste ML20136E451 ML20136E629 ML20136E727 ML20136E735 ML20136E805 ML20136E856 ML20138A351 ML20138A356 ML20138A362 ML20138A367 ML20138A371 ML20138A374 ML20138A383 ML20138A388 ML20138A396 ML20138A418 ML20138A424 ML20138A434 ML20138A453 ML20138A460 ML20138A471 ML20138A482 ML20138A492 ML20138A502 ML20138A508 ML20138A624 ML20138A693 ML20138A711 ML20138A720 ML20138A727 ML20138A760 ML20138A832 ML20138A844 ML20138A854 ML20138A868 ML20138A874 ML20138A888 ML20138A905 ML20138A917 ML20138A922 ML20138A962 ML20138A989 ML20138B003 ML20138B019 ML20138B036 ML20138B050 ML20138B065 ML20138B078 ML20138B094 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-682 NUDOCS 8512120279
Download: ML20138B371 (1)

Text

_.

go* re cg pf o g s UNITED sT ATEs (

! d e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l s W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 t j o $ 'IUL 2 9 I%l e...*

1 i H&R Technical Associates l

P.O. Box 215 ATTN: Ann H. Hansen Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,

SUBJECT:

RFP No. RS-NMS-81-030, " ANALYSIS OF SAFEGUARDS NEEDS FOR l

TRANSPORT OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE".

Dear Mg,

Hansen:

l This is to advise H&R Technical Associates that the subject procurement has been awarded to Battelle, Columbus Laboratories on a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee basis in the amount of $148,255.00.  ;

following is a discussion of your proposal's m&jor deficiencies as found by the Source Evaluation Panel (SEP). Such discussion is general in l nature and should not be contrued to be all inclusive with respect to l your proposal weaknesses.

The experience of the proposed consultant was considered adequate except that it was limited to safeguards for nuclear power reactors.

The Panel had a major concern about the probability of success of the program in the event of illness, etc. to the key personnel. Although a contingency plan was presented to the Panel during negotiations and reiterated in the best and finals, it did not override the Panel's concerns. 4 Additionally, yourattention is drawn to Part 2, Item 16(a), Paragraph 2 which states that, "Although technical merit in related past experience, criteria number 1, will be a factor in the evaluation of proposals, cost will be the more significant factor in selection of a contractor. To be selected for an award, the proposed cot t must be realistic and reasonable.

We appreciate your continued interest in the Commission's programs, as '

well as the time and effort expended in responding to this RFP.

Sincerely, ,

i Mary Jo Mattia, Chief Technica1' Assistance Contracts Branch Division of Contracts l/ A DM : DC /, , ,., ADM s

! EBM11es!ch

• MJM la l 7N '/81 7/p/B1 0512120279 851112

,, NLA 602 PDR -P

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ - .