ML20203E434
| ML20203E434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/16/1997 |
| From: | Hassell D NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Norry P NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203D144 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-63FR67726, RULE-PR-48C20 AF52-1-024, AF52-1-24, NUDOCS 9902170191 | |
| Download: ML20203E434 (1) | |
Text
- .. . - . - . . - . - . . - - . - . . . - - - - . - . - - -
~~
! UNITED STATES
!- #p2 4aug'o . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /,p
) # g' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
, s 3
OrF CE O HE '
GENERAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM TO: Patricia G. Norry Deputy Executive Directive
'for Management ces FROM: Donald F. Has Assistant Gene I
/
forAdministration
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE " NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACQUISITION REGULATION'(NRCAR)
In accordance with your August 14,1997, memorandum, we have reviewed the proposed revision to the NRCAR and recommend the following changes to that document::
- 1. The proposed revisions would eliminate existing NRCAR $ 2015.612(b)(1)(l), which says that Source Evaluation Panels ordinarily should consist of at least three evaluators, and NRCAR $ 2015(b)(2), which says that a single evaluator may be used for procurements of less
. than $500,000. Our experience indicates that NRC benefits (e.g. particularly defending against protests) from the more thorough evaluations possible when three or more evaluators l independently review proposals and then jointly discuss their proposed findings and conclusions. However, we agree that this number of evaluators is not legally necessary for procurements under $500,000. Accordingly, we recommend retention of the existing language in both instances.
- 2. The proposed revision eliminates both the existing bid evaluation language in NRCAR
$ 2014.201(b)(1), requiring the use of the solicitation clause NRCAR $2052.214-71, Bidder Qualifications and Past Exponence, and the solicitation clause itself. The clause requires that bidders list prior contracts and associated information for NRC's use in determining whether the contractor should be considered a responsible contractor. We believe that a clause of this type is useful and recommend its retention, even though NRC does not use the sealed bid process frequently. Further, in our exponence, NRC uses a similar solicitation clause in negotiated procurements to obtain information for evaluating past performance. Accordingly, we recommend that the NRCAR include similar instructions and a solicitation clause for use in negohated procurements. We also recommend that such clauses require that the bidder or oNoror identify both business and technical contacts, together with their telephone numbers.
Please call me at 415-1550 if you have any questions about these recommendations.
5 p]21g191990209 48C2063FR67726 PDR ;
e 3 90 W 70B \ Cd