ML20235K873
Text
~
fp 1[R lR ( )
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS 1625 I Street, N.W., Suite'1004:
Washington, D.C. 20006 202-293-3950 5
i Ms. Mary Jo Mattia I Contract Officer j Division of Contracts i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Contract No. NRC-17-83-399
Dear Ms. Mattia:
Tayloe Associates has agreed to provide.NRC, pursuant to your request, mag tape or nine-track tape !
of the Indian Point hearing transcripts commencing with the hearing held on March 21, 1983. The-price and delivery agreed to were $1.25 per page, and three working days after the close of th hearing day of interest. We understand that a modification to the subject contract is being prepared by NRC to cover these terms.
The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of'a problem that makes production and delivery of the. tapes impossible. Tayloe Associates cannot produce the tapes until NRC has finalized arrange-ments with others to provide the Lexis format, 1 including a library number, a file. number and seg- {
mentation information.. We had understood that '
NRC had made such. arrangements with a company called Meade Data. However, Mr. Tom Oveis of~Meade. Data refuses to release NRC's Lexis format to our'sub-contractor until a contract has been signed between Meade and NRC. I understand that no such contract 1 has been consummated.as of the close of business Friday, March 25, 1983.
Tayloe Associates stands ready to produce -i the map tapes as soon as we receive NRC's Lexis i format. I would appreciate your assistance and ,
l advice in this matter. J Thank you.
Sincerely, _j TAYLOE ASSOCIATES B707160465 FOM 870709 By:
.:.Q Ann Riley fen 1 85 %.
PDR pgp '-
BIRD 85-675 -
q
, . . 9' - A -
3
\ STANDARD FORM 98 -
Qev.Feb.1973 U.S.oEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS A~$ERVICE CONTRACT AND RESPONSE TO NOTICE (See Instructions on Reverse)
A '366 2 ADMINISTRATION
- 2. Estimated solicitation date (use numera)
Mall TO:
Month Day Year F- 1 1 30 1984
- 3. Estimated date bids or proposals to be opened Administrator or negotiations begun (use numerafs)
Wage and Hour Division Month Dsy Year U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 20210 2 28 19M
- 4. Date contract performance to begin (use numerals)
L J Month Day Year 3 16 1984
- 5. PLACE (S) OR PERFORMANCE 6. SERVICES TO.BE PERFORMED (describe)
All areas of the 50 United States, Puerto Stenographic reporting services for hearings Rico and the Virgin Islands except the as may be required by the NRC.
Washington, DC Metropolitan area.
Of W
- 7. INFORMATION ABOUT PERFORMANCE A. O services now performed by a B. O services now performed by Federal C. O service = aot Pre >eativ beias contractor employees performed B. IF BOX A IN ITEM 7 IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM B AS APPLICABLE a, Name ard address of incumbent contractor b. Number (s) of any wage determination (s) in . incumbent's
~ * "*' ~
__.Tay.3ee Associates 1625 "I" Street, N.W., Suite 1004 76-553R6 h-Washington, DC 20006 =c
- c. Name(s) of union (s) if services are being performed under collective bar aining RESPONSE TO NOYlCE agreement (s). Important: Attach copies of cunent applicable collective argain-ing agreements (by Department oftisbor)
A. The attached wage Termination (s)
None
% 453 listed below a ply 9 tokrecuremen
.y
~
- 9. OFFICI AL SUBMITTING NOTICE SIGNED DATE B. CAs of this date. no wage determina.
g <
g, M 12/22/83 ti n 8PPlicable to the specified locality and classes of employees is in effect.
TYPE OR PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NO.
Kathryn A. Davis 492-7125 C. OFrom infonnation suppii a. the serv..
ice Contract Act does not apply (see
- 10. TYPE OR PRINT NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON TO WHOM RESPONSE IS TO BE SENT attached crplanation)'
AND NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, BUREAU, DIVISION, ETC.
~
D. ceveturned for additionalinfor-I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission "*'
' / ' '"d'h'd " '"%
Division of Contracts Attn: Mrs. Kathryn A. Davis #
Washington, DC 20555 sig ed: -' 1 (U.S. Department of Labor)
L ,
, _J
_ __.m QQ f C QQR(Data) ,
~
FO.1 A 8 5- W)!
,- 98 103 g =r .
= _ _ _ . _ _ _
, e - ^ _
" "M "0-NOTICE OF INTENTION TOW"KE
. STANDAED 50RM '** .
U.S. DEF DEN OF LABOR A SERVICE CONTRACY AND RESPONSE TO NOTICE A1366274 Employment Stondords Administration (Attachment A)
I (3 NUMBER Of it HOURLY WAGE RATE
- 12. CLA55E5 Of SERVICE EMPtOYEE5 TO BE EMPLOYED ON CONTRACT EMPLOYE E5 iHAT WOULD SE IN E ACH CL ASS PAID IF FCDERAtLY f MPLOYED Court Reporter
- 11.78 I
Shorthand Reporter 9.74 i Typist 6.43 Copying Machine Operator 5.12 i
- Will exceed the number for which a wage determination is mandatory under the provisions of 29 CFR 4.3(a) l l
l 1
l 1
4 O
i i
i 4
v i
I i&
= d 1
- 5. - .
- 3,.,a, -
i o 1 g n eoh al E t N i ttt a ca H a A d r nf eo r e T n J r ooln e ' r D
oi o ei tl a d a t c ct) ae ep N
A ye m e e
r iea1t (t e F ti s O
lt pe t
a ts y
- pu)ar sh ab i s C
D r e
- e pa f l nsl r pd n e e g e p hn(syo I
R a
e m v a p a g a c a 6 rb oel ti gapt t g y a
i l p t uc n u e s ot ah O oa p e r g yo o t d^ nawsl I
R nw t D e r n n bihc o l E se f
i y
p e p
i o t AC t eyoiqb U
e r d cn urrh 04 p et oa n
e D
a 3 5 1 t o d e eit b et a
08 d r b icS ac i 01 ,
a e 0 1 6 i n au pdfta m tl e I np g cb n s T0 n 1 $ $ o e orr u aa oe CA I oe i r n er et m r nmis A i s F b rntcni t o W t ,
nsh re E H A ah ) k yoe on oacaym D nc) 7 s a n rC i ceu ii . 2 n mdao m rs I
mhd weu ev f
- i r e rf e e A y e
- c N K e r g e n sti cd eau h ad t
C SS t rs R e a g e el qyi e - eas i
I T
AD I N eos dfi
(
h v p a p
t yse av i fd pe A
t i s o n r pr f N AAI esn 5 3 a e
l e
r e l a ei oi veet I r , .
p r yoS c C S gt e 5 H D p e e s t ort e eob t NI I
ace wab 6 y 9 p
i n r e
cu nt ep c r n pl i n DNI r 7 a 7 7 h h e e u eh s a l wG st e inv D 6 c t c h trt moae CR hoa 3 1
a o iwa u e rthh o
NI Tch :
r m m y v,t1h h st IV ( e u iy e r s f s b p b ed 1t t r adf t m imr no u
y n s e e Qi e poa no dutshFwf o l
a u e W Ar:
S e n n
ih M
y e
- t o
n k
a n e e s
io t
a r
e g
a e
g e
t t anl.cs ol n iir n s h rnnnt t oiio-n v p a s s t et i
i p e o tfu a e ncri Y m l r a t itsua loi c iaere r
e e r o a n fnl rh w pe x IT e L t e D p e f n ne d t A d y 8 p o i plrm end n roei C e f m mle o n g a 8 5 e . o r cipc i ict l
- o. a D 7 ss ecw u sd t
W 2 uet t t q eie n d
1 $ $
yo i p ed os ehl ce-rt ds an g.tnur r
n l
o a bn r ee R
t a c io .
eysd E
r g se s ik eb oigs D
t is n eh n hrry h6 y h v in tt a t ou d 6 od t eir N N i t o r w oye r 1 l e O U m r nf t n hln e . pid e o d if I
T S A o e orenotStrh4 mf nt a A
R NT r e
e y
p e
g n kt ap p d y e e pe f o eian s R T IOCob o r i p ti t tr rs ,esscaeeo mn TAa r OISN 0 lp m y oc o l a u er n r 4vcsr il s BN tO 21 AT L m i t hs h uaa s tu a o LAI 5 Ml 0 NCo f e e
t a wna w percrft r eel ah age a ,t 'ear D
I Ay ic b r sr s im t sb c F
DIV2M R v e r
O SA . a r et e se hn tedPflhb e r
C. R Tt e e e b e e T D RD TE Nc r s v i / ya y sti cb a ol c f
r o o A aud t m,sh N U o 2 i E R ON, A E OeS s r
o cf l e pp l ,t 9 se D HO D Ce M
- s sI p e rls o s 2 a . ni s s T T Eh a f n g u y n tavs e ud n t R ND G E Cf t
lC : a n ct o l nemd A AN N GI o ss r) i p reernne cierec P TAI H AVn t e cc ts e y ed cn e c
wr a a el o dcmt yrt t e eo _
ewem E S E DTN G S A
WRi Et c o ai rv &i t
t i a vrd i v "eg h sa t n yi neeeeh r s a T Ahbd, 1E AW W F S er t r ne ru ,
r a ; ut e p '
UM O Ed i a
ed hpd r
e en sa e
s p i s mSt Y RHy msg ae b h rs ,
af sE o ETB nn rn i r
st er s
e e a srr o n T l
T oi gi c pbio oO P d o d "
M S
I di b ob nm s
n uh u easbd s i N E G r er eo a l s c
l c Atbaent E t e yc t c r nr n a Lroa' ry iil R t os S( T I o I :
lru t u O. l n E k ri q r g tpa r Isu T
M.
W Bt 1 2
/~
1 f2 Kao?
thFppRae o e -
- ~..~;,..' .f3 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW nac COwatcticv? avtwut. a.= .
Svitt 32S wa $ m 4No t ch, O. c. 2 0 0 3.
TC LE.M O N E 802*333 9730 Cnacaco OrttCC gag Fem.T maticmak skaja FOntv..gCohD January 5, 1982 c ic c o. w-o..'kooo ...c3 ,
ects.~o c3......,.oe i T t oc a: a . sa ..
i j
Mr. Craig D. Lebo, Chief Administrative Contracts 3 Branch )
Division of Contracts l Ofice of Administration .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 .
1
Subject:
Re. Invitation For Bid No. RS-SECY-82-471, "Stenocrachic Reportine Services: l
Dear Mr. Lebo:
I am writing this letter on ' behalf.of Tayloe j Associates, a stenographic reporting firm located at 617 Citizens Trust Building, Norfolk, Virginia 23502. Tayloe Associates, a small business, is interested in bidding on the subject IFB and, if successful, opening an office in the Washington area. I have been retained as counsel in this matter.
1 Amendment No. One of the subject IFB provides an J esti:nate of between 650 and 750 hearing days that will !
require reporting during the one-year term of the proposed. J contract. It is stated in the IFB that 95% of the hearings before the Atomic Safety and- Licensing Boards ("ASLB") and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (" ASLAB" ) will be held at locations other than Washington, D. C., through- l out the continental United States,. including Puerto Rico.
The same is true with respect to 84% of the ACRS meetings and 20% of the meetings involving security interviews, pro-posal conferences, press conferences, and public workshops.
No allocation of the total estimated hearing days among the ASLB, ASLAB, and ACRS is presented in the IFB; and, with the exception of.these estimates, no clue is provided in the IFB i
O f.fr61$5 ^ fl FarA 85-695 c
/)- J ,
~
Mr. Craig D. L:bs
- December 30, 1981 Page 2 as to the location of the hearings within the continental United States, including Puerto Rico, the estimated duration of the hearings at each location, or the number of repeat trips expected for each license application. Despite this lack of information, the Invitation For Bid requires fixed-price bids which must include all travel expenses for the out-of-town hearings for the one-year duration of the pro-posed contract, as well as for the one-year option period. ;
My client, Tayloe Asssociates, as a prospective bidder, is l unable to develop a rational and competitive bid without the essential information concerning the number, duration, and location of the out-of-town trips during the contract and option periods.
To explain further, we must know how many trips will be required from a Washington office location to li- J censing and ACRS hearings held in the midwest, southwest, and far west. For example, my client's bid price would obviously be higher to accommodate airline travel expenses l if a number of reporting assignments were expected in Cali- l fornia, Oregon, or the State of Washington than would be the
, case if no such assignments, or at the most one or two, were l contemplated. Moreover, it is essential to be apprised of the expected duration of each series of hearings as well as the number of expected repeat sessions. It is not unusual l for ASLB hearings for one pendine acolication to be held for l a week or two-week perloc every mcnth for tnree or four consecutive months until the hearing record is closed. On l the other hand, a similar hearing at a different location involving a different applicant and a much less contested l
proceeding may last only a week before it is concluded. You j can readily perceive that without this type of information, albeit in the nature of an informed estimate, my client can only speculate as to the proper cost factor to be included in the bic price to cover travel expenses. The danger of either overbidding or underbidding, and the consequences of each, is apparent. Moreover, the risk is compounded by the fact that the government may exercise the option for a second year of similar services without anv increase in the bid price.
It is our view that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission ("NRC"), as the procuring activity, has a duty and obligation under applicable law and regulations governing formal advertising to include the foregoing information in
' nep.
~ . .
Labi Mr. Crai'g D. -
D3ccmber 30, 1981 j Page 3 l
l the subject IFB. Invitation For Bids must. describe the government's requirements clearly and completely. FPR S 1-2.101 (a) . A description of the services must be set forth in an IFB in sufficient detail to permit full and free competition. FPR S 1-2. 201 (a) (7) .- We submit that the information concerning hearing location, frequency, etc., is essential and must be furnished by the NRC before the sub-ject IFB can be characterized.as stating the " government's requirements clearly and completely and in sufficient detail to permit full and free competiton." In its present state, j the subject IFB violates the teaching that the government l should exercise care in employing a requirements contract to j avoid imposition of an impossible burden on the contractor. !
FPR SS 1-2.104-4 (b) and 1-3. 4 09 (b) . The risk of overbidding l or underbidding, as described above, represents an "impos-sible burden" as discussed in section 1-3.409 (b) .
I have determined that information concerning location, frequency, etc., of the various NRC hearings is I l
not completely and readily available at the NRC's Public-Document Room. However, we firmly believe that the infor-mation exists within the agency. Surely the Chairmen of ASLB and ASLA3 Panels and the ACRS . maintain this information for the orderly administration of their activities. We believe, for example, that the Chairman of the ASLB Panel maintains a schedule for the purpose of administering case-load and administration law judge assignments which sets forth the projected hearing locations and other scheduling information for the next two years. We also understand that the Directorate of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of the Executive Legal Director and, perhaps, the Commissioners themselves, maintain similar information. Finally, the Chairman of the ACRS must be aware of the Committees' and Subcommittees' practices with respect to hearing location, etc.
In sum, we believe NRC has a duty to provide this information, and that the information is uniquely within the custody of the agency. Therefore, we request that the time for submitting bids be extended until 30 days after an snendment to the subject IFB is issued which provides the requisite information concerning the location, frequency, etc., of the various NRC hearings. This request is made without prejudice to all legal rights and remedies that may l
e l
'y Mr. Craig-D. L.
December 30, 19ot Page 4 be available to my client, should the NRC decide to award a contract without this information being made available.
The original of this letter is being mailed to you. However, a copy is being hand-delivered this morning to Mr. Mark Flynn to facilitate your prompt consideration of this. request. Please call me at 833-9730 if you have any questions.
i Sincerely, l
<~3 2 -
,._,f p hAb Joseph Gallo JG/pm , ,
0 g a*
9 i #ft O ' *J 8 m e, es,g , . , ,
_ _ _ _ . - . . . - - - . . _ _ - - - - - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - - --____.____-.-_------_-.___-__---.--------_-_s
-,44cj3 ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELOR $ AT LAW H2O CONNECTICUT AVENUC, N.W.
SUITC 325 WAS HINGTON, D. C. 2003 6 )
TC LE PMON E 202 833 9730 ONE FIRST N ATIONAL PLA,4 January 5, 1982 cwECAoEIIP="OSs'd e"O3 TELE PHON E 312 *S58 7500 TELCK:2+S288 Mr. Craig D. Lebo, Chief Administrative Contracts Branch
, Division of Contracts
! Ofice of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Re. Invitation For Bid No. RS-SECY-82-471,
" Stenographic Reporting Services:
Dear Mr. Lebo:
I am writing this letter on behalf of Tayloe Associates, a stenographic reporting firm located at 617 Citizens Trust Building, Norfolk, Virginia 23502. Tayloe '
Associates, a small business, is interested in bidding on the subject IFB and, if successful, opening an office in the Washington area. I have been retained as counsel in this matter.
Amendment No. One of the subject IFB provides an estimate of between 650 and 750 hearing days that will require reporting during the one-year term of the proposed contract. It is stated in the IFB that 95% of the-hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards ("ASLB") and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards ("ASLAB") will be held at locations other than Washington, D. C., through-out the continental United States, including Puerto Rico.
The same is true with respect to 84% of the ACRS meetings and 20% of the meetings involving security interviews, pro-posal conferences, press conferences, and public workshops.
No allocation of the total estimated hearing days among the ASLB, ASLAB, and ACRS is presented in the IFB; and, with the exception of these estimates, no clue is provided in the IFB
, ~ ~ y yP fora $5-675 esttpOT" g-4
[
Mr. Craig D. Lebo j December 30, 1981 l page 2 as to the location of the hearings within the continental United States, including. Puerto Rico, the estimated duration of the hearings at each location, or the number of repeat trips expected for each license application. Despite this lack of information, the Invitation For Bid requires fixed-price bids which must include all' travel expenses for the out-of-town hearings for the one-year duration of the pro-posed contract, as well as for the one-year option period.
My client, Tayloe Asssociates, as a prospective bidder, is unable to develop a rational and competitive bid without the essential information concerning the number, duration, and
[
l location of the out-of-town trips during the contract and i option periods.
To explain further, we must knew how many trips j will be required from a Washington office locaticn to li-censing and ACRS hearings held in the midwest, southwest, and far west. For example, my client's bid price would obviously be higher to accommodate airline travel expenses if a number of reporting assignments were expected in Cali-fornia, Oregon, or the State of Washington than would be the 1 case if no such assignments, or at the most one or two, were l contemplated. Moreover, it is essential to be apprised of j the expected duration of each series of hearings as well as ,
the number of expected repeat sessions. It is not unusual I for ASLB hearings for one pending application to be held for i a week or two-week period every month for three or four consecutive months until the hearing record is closed. On the other hand, a similar hearing at a different location involving a different applicant and a much less contested proceeding may last only a week before it is concluded. You can readily perceive that without this type of information, ,
albeit in the nature of an informed estimate, my client can only speculate as to the proper' cost factor to be included in the bid price to cover travel expenses. The danger of either overbidding or underbidding, and the consequences of each, is apparent. Moreover, the risk is compounded by the fact that the government may exercise the option for a second year of similar services without any increase in the bid price.
It is our view that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission ("NRC"), as the procuring activity, has a duty and I obligation under applicable law and regulations governing formal advertising to include the foregoing information in l
l l
. (
Mr. Craig D. Lebo December 30, 1981 Page 3 the subject IFB. Invitation For Bids must describe the government's requirements clearly and completely. FPR S 1-2.101(a). A description of the services must be set forth in an IFB in sufficient detail to permit full and free competition. FPR S 1-2. 201 (a) (7) . We submit that the information concerning hearing location, frequency, etc., is essential and must be furnished by the NRC before the sub-ject IFB can be characterized as stating the " government's requirements clearly and completely and in sufficient detail l
to permit full and free competiton." In its present state, the subject IFB violates the teaching that the government l should exercise care in employing a requirements contract to avoid imposition of an impossible burden on the contractor.
FPR SS 1-2,104-4 (b) and 1-3. 4 09 (b) . The risk of overbidding or underbidding, as described above, represents an "impos-sible burden" as discussed in section 1-3.409 (b) .
I have determined that information concerning location, frequency, etc., of the various NRC hearings is not completely and readily available at the NRC's Public Document Room. However, we firmly believe that the infor-mation exists within the agency. Surely the Chairmen of ASLB and ASLAB Panels and the ACRS maintain this information for the orderly administration of their activities. We believe, for example, that the Chairman of the ASLB Panel maintains a schedule for the purpose of administering case-load and administration law judge assignments which sets forth the projected hearing locations and other scheduling information for the next two years. We also understand that the Directorate of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of the Executive Legal Director and, perhaps, the Commissioners j themselves, maintain similar information. Finally, the !
Chairman of the ACRS must be aware of the Committees' and {
l Subcommittees' practices with respect to hearing location, l etc.
i 1
In sum, we believe NRC has a duty to provide this information, and that the information is uniquely within the I custody of the agency. Therefore, we request that the time for submitting bids be extended until 30 days after an l amendment to the subject IFB is issued which provides the
- requisite information concerning the location, frequency, I etc., of the various NRC hearings. This request is made I
without prejudice to all legal rights and remedies that may j i
i l
(.
f 1:
Mr. Craig'D.'Lebo December 30, 1981.
Page 4 be available to'my client, should'.the NRC decide to award a contract without this information being made available.
1 The original of this letter is being mailed to you. However, a copy'is being hand-delivered this morning to Mr. Mark.Flynn to facilitate your prompt consideration of this request.. Please call me at 833-9730 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.Q , ~ l ,b1!b eph3-7 Jos Gallo JG/pm 1
r e p3 .
?,, ggg UNITED STATES
- c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSloN P ,4 g WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
~
,5
.... FEB 5 1982 9r9 Q p rin n p p \
l q FEB 1 ? 1982
< j L
JLSULSU V 156 General Accounting Office General Counsel Attn: Bid Protest Control Unit Washington, DC 20548 Gentlemen: .
Subject:
IFB No. RS-SECY-82-471 Entitled, " Stenographic Reporting -
Services"
Reference:
- 1. Letter dated January 12, 1982 from Mr. Joseph Gallo to U Mr. Milton J. Socolar, Esquire i
- 2. Bid Protest Control Number B-206070 This. to inform you that bid' opening under the subject IFB, originally l scheduled for January 13, 1982, 10:00 A.M. has been postponed indef-inetely. All potential bidders which were sent copies of the IFB were notified of this prior to bid opening. We are undertaking a revision to ;
the solicitation which we feel will address the concerns of the Pro-testor. We request a postponement to the development of the protest until all parties are advised of the changes which we believe will -
obviate the protest.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me or Mr.
Mark Flynn of my stiff on (301) 492-4800.
Sincerely, ,
I
,. v 5 )h:$/
7 raig D. Lebo, Chief Administrative Contracts Branch' 1 Division of Contracts l Office of Administration cc: Isham, Lincoln f Beale ATTN: Mr. Joseph Gallo 1
,,4 o Fora ts-675 co,3 . q1 I
g a iii e LK Q
((
t
(
I
.6 7 ,
D' ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE i COUNSELORS AT LAW l
1120 CONNECTICUT AVENut,N W = SUITE S40 WASHINGTON. O C 90036 IDWAJtD$ l$MAM 1972 1902 902 433 0730 CHICAGO OFFICI RCl[RT T UNCOLN 1872 1889 ONE FIRST hAfs0NAL PL A2 A I WILuAa# G BEALE 188 5 1923 CHICAGO. ILLINor$ 606G3 TILE E 31 7500 March 10, 1982 1
I i
Mr. Craig D. Lebo, Chief 1 Administrative Contracts l Branch Division of Contracts l Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I l
l
Subject:
Re. Invitation for Bid No. RS-SECY-82-471, j'
" Stenographic Reporting Services"
Dear Mr. Lebo:
1 You, as Contracting Of ficer, have established, !
in accordance with applicable procurement regulations and policies, the subject procurement action as a total set-aside for small business concerns. However, I understand you are now reconsidering your determination because it has been suggested that small business concerns do not have the capability to meet the qualification requirements of the IPB.
My client, Tayloe Associates, is a small business, and we strongly disagree with the notion that a small business l is not capable of providing the reporting services required i by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Such a broad indict-ment is both unfounded and a disservice to the many qualified and conscientious small business reporting firms who are eligible to bid on the subject IFB. It may be helpful, for example, if I detail the qualifications of my client.
Tayloe Associates, a stenoc;raphic reporting firm, n, m, ; d y 5 3 f f FarA 85-675 J* se
(
t
(
l 1
is located at 617 Citizens Trust Building, Norfolk, Virginia i 23502. The firm, which was established in 1978, is owned I by Mr. Frank G. Tayloe. Mr. Tayloe has 17 years of reporting experience, including 13 years reporting AEC/NRC proceedings.
As an employee of Ace-Federal Reporting Company, he reported dozens of licensing hearings and ACRS meetings. As you can see, Mr. Tayloe is uniquely qualified, through his firm, to ,
provide the reporting services required by the NRC. I If my client is the successful bidder, Mr. Tayloe is prepared to provide the financial, manpower and managerial resources necessary to satisfy the requirements of the IFB. ,
He will establish a Washington office within 30 days after l award which will provide the capability to report and generate i accurate and timely transcripts. The partner / manager of the i Washington office will be a person with 16 years experience in the reporting business, including substantial experience ]
l in NRC proceedings. This management tean provides the '
nucleus for a cadre of highly qualified personnel -- one that will meet the qualification requirements of the IFD, including i I
the proviso that the successful bidder he able to cover eight to 10 hearings (same day at dif ferent locations) primarily i with " employees or individuals currently under direct contract."
The Washington office, of couise, will be supported by Mr. Tayloe's Norfolk operation. One particular benefit is that the Norfolk of fice is equipped with the latest computer system called the Baron systen. This computer system is programmed to transcribe the reporter's stenographic notes without the aid of a typist or transcriber. This back-up capability will be evailable as needed if my client is the successful bidder.
This description of the capabilities of Tayloe Associates is intended to demonstrate that a small business can do the job required by the subject IFB. My client is confident that other qualified small business firms exist in the marketplace, and that your original determination to establish this procurement as a total small business set-l l
l
, R
- a. . A f m.
. I l
i aside is correct. He urge that you stand by that judgment.
Sincerely, Joseph Gallo l
I I
)
s e
p MAR 2 31952 ,
Mr. Joseph Gallo r Ishaci, Lincoln f, Beale Counselors At Law 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 840 ]
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Gallo:
This is in response to your letter dated March 22, 1982 questioning the Contracting Officer's decision to change IF8-RS-SECY-82-471,
" Stenographic Reporting Services" from a small business set-aside to one of open competition.
I have reviewed the Contracting Officer's rationale for such change and participated with Mr. Verl Zanders, a procurement center repre-sentative of the Small Business Administration in a discussion on this subject. Based upon the information available to me, I car.not conclude that the Contracting Officer's present intention to change the small business set-aside determination is arbitrary and capricious. In any event the matteris presently under discussion between SBA and NRC and a decision is expected in the near future.
From our perspective small and disadvantaged firms will not be precluded from competing for this award; but however, the minimum needs of the NRC are such that maximum competition based on the specifications is desirable. GA0 decisions from my research are reluctant to interfere with a Contracting Officer's discretion in deciding what requirements will be set =aside for small business.
Sincerely, originalSiGau W i
- w. B. Kerr W. B. Kerr, Director Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization / Civil Rights bec: E. Halman, DC 9
l p# l Y -
l i
L f L( N S ' p,o fora 85-675 i A- 9