ML20058F620
| ML20058F620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1993 |
| From: | Brown L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mccubbin S NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-J-2062-3, CON-NRC-03-93-026, CON-NRC-3-93-26 NUDOCS 9312080207 | |
| Download: ML20058F620 (4) | |
Text
,
Octoter 7, 1993 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Sharlene McCubbin, Contract Administrator Contract Administration Branch Office of Administration FROM:
Leta Brown, Program Manager i
Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
CONTRACT NRC 03-93-026 WITH PARAMETER, INC., TASK ORDER 05,
" SERVICE WATER SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE INSPECTION -
OCONEE," JOB CODE J-2062-3 Enclosed is a completed proposal evaluation form for Task Order 05, " Service Water Systems Operational Performance Inspection - Oconee." As noted-in the evaluation, the NRC Hodification No. I to the Statement of Work revised the inspection schedule, but did not note a reduction in the level of effort by reducing the 10 day trip to a five day trip.
In the response to the request for a proposal, Parameter, Inc., provided an appropriate reduction in the t
level of effort commensurate with a five day trip.
Therefore, please note i
that the Parameter, Inc., proposal dated October 4,1993 is acceptable.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me on 504-1232.
i ORIGINAL SIGN W DY:
Leta Brown, Program Manager Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat?-a i
Enclosure:
Proposal valm tion form DjstribM t
i..
Cont rac--
<!e (LBrown)
Central > Jts i
DRIL R/f RSIB R/f EVimbro DNorkin IBall 6fflCE:
DRIL:NRR,,
NAME:
LBrowncy 3 DATE:
10/7/93 OfflCIAL FILE NAME: T09305.EVL t
&f )c[ I Q
9312080207 931007 PDR CONTR f
NRC-03-93-026 PDR p
llfe-Cy <j3 4 M
)#a ra m ek r* Inc.
Not TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROCa..>URES g,,,f gfuj7_ g,,
/
i PROPOSAL EVALUATION (page 1 of 3) t INSTRUCTIONS Address each question. Andrus oli denat.ons r.uccepubic upeev or the propc.at (mes. dang any periineni inform.iion prended by the contractor) m$ ether or noi they are subacquen0y found to be acttptabk. por e!! dewstsons (or imitasily unscrc'it,able esperta cd the propcmat), state the Senaison, octermitw acerptabahry, and af not acceptab6c, tuplain spy requirsd chnget af the ecst, nachinc3L and/or arty orher espects of the proposal art tonssient with the iridependent cost estimsic orid the requirrmerits of the statemer.1 of o'ork (SOW), pecmde an afrirmstrwe statement to that effset. If the quesuon a aca applicable to the propcsat, state that it a not applicable.
COST CONSIDERATIONS Compare the cost pmposal with the independent cost estimate. (For commernai contrans or tut orden.ihe contract admin strator eti obtairi edWe from the Gcmenment auditor regardirg the aczeptability of the labor reies end indirect roses, fo* crample, onrhead.
fnege, sed GA A (general and adminisirairve) For DOE Nai.onal laboratory contracts. DOE as responsibne for attutir g to the acceptabihiy of these raics )
Are the proposed hours consistent with those identified in the independent cost estimate for each labor Categor)? Prtmde an suiyss of the proposed hours state the denations, and explain their acceptaoihty if not a reptable. erplain req.ared charges ELC-Oh
~/U~h \\fiq 7)[jd
- Tun Xe./& #c O
Uk M<%.d it x et -sce c Zie,t ;u c h bd.w b u t cEd du / >u L
{ty.yjntfy,m ex }
~W H d J
h Ih s c h em. rt
'u<p.wi,wiawws, Om%<"
by n a Jia eL11 r y L F,c t' h et 5 1y tl la tr, t t; c % C~s2 w A A C C d W -
- Is the proposed travel consistent with that stated in the SOW, and necessary for performance of Ihe work? neer. ihe psrpcar. n.mber or trips. iocaiion (or,s:n and desiir.ai.oc). n.mber of tra ci days.. d nomber or y onnei ira ehes s:aic the acesiions from the 50W and erplain their acerptabib'y if r,sI accepiable, erp!ain required chaegcs. (For commertal "irects or task orot es the roairari admmisirstor 3,11 wenfy per diem and transporta! on raies ror DOE Nations 11aboratory contracts, DOE is. mormbie for this st rJecation )
)
/
i 3 Are the purpose, labor categories and expertise, number of hours, and hourly rates for any
]
proposed subcontractor or conaltant reasonable and necessary far performance of the work?
Prcede an ana%s of ihe propcmed later cairgones and erperime, number of hours, and rates and espiam their ressor, ableness and accepias hry if nrei acccresbic, esp ain regrred charges.
.. /\\
l l
l
PROPOSAL EVALUATION (page 2 of 3) c COST CONSIDERATIONS (Continued)
A;e the proposed quantity and estimated 'other direct costs" (such as telephone, erpress mall, 4.
computer tirae, materials) reasonable and necessary for performance of the wrk? Are the costs consistent with the independent cost estimate? rnmde...n.tyu. or ihe prope d cnher dir.ci co.i.nd inc., purpc.
stete she drenons from the andependeni cost e hm.te and expl.in iheir rea.or bknees and acTept.bilary. If not accepet4c. erpi ie regwred o ege.
h
\\
5 Has the contractor proposed any ADP equipment, testing, or othkr special equipment? Are they reasonable and necessary for performance of the work? Are they consistent with the independent cost estimate? rnmac n n.tra or the quenney.nd pnee. stait oemnons.nd erpt i. iheir.crepi.danii !r noi
.nep: Sie, capt.tv reqmeed rt r:ges
.< J \\-
c.
For commercial contracts.' task orders,is there any particular or unique applicable information (e.g., state-of-ti.e an, complexity, uncenainties of pc-formance, likelihood of change) that canassist the contract administrator in determining the level of profit (fee)? rn-de inci,a e.nen c
h p) p r
TECHNICAL CONSIDER ATIONS i Are the proposed labor categories consistent with those in the SOW (e.g., sufficient level of expenise, all technical areas cosered in number and types, availability of personnel when needed)? rnmoc...n.'g4 or ine pmm.ed i. tor cmennes s:m in, demnon.nd crp:..n incir.rcepi.daay Ir noi.ecers.we. err: 'a rtomud o.rga f f)
If the proposed technical approach is difTerent from that in the SOW,is it reasonable and n
suitable to accomplish the objective (s)? Are any areas of the approach inappropriate? pnmde n ens'psa M the seennir.1 pmpcm.! s4.te the der orms.nd crpl.m their. crept.bility If not.rcept.tde, erpl.in rtquared ch.rges
f PROPOSAL EVALUATION
~
(page 3 of 3)
Are the proposed scheduled milestones and the period of performance consistent with the s.
requirements of the SOW' Are they reasonable? we the emotione..a a. cum inear.cerp.diury. ir nos.=eptadie.
~
eni. =qmme ch r:su.
9 Is the technical proposal fully responsive to the SOW in other areas not evaluated above (e.g.,
to clarity; description and breakdown of the tasks and subtasks to allow appropriate level of monitoring; the description of the type, quantity, distribution of reports and any other delivera ble)? reae.n.wyw or ine iechnai pwp.t sme the amei.orm no a.evu eheir.cecy.bairy ir m.ceep.oie. en.m eeq.,ree te,.ngu 0/
t OTHER CONSIDERATIONS n On the basis of the information in the proposal and any other Information readily available, does an appearance of or an actual organizational conflict ofinterest exist for the prime contractor or subcontractor or consultant,if applicable, as defined in 48 CFR Part 20? r.ntamyour oeierrnm.i.on (J O u On the basis of the information in the proposal and any other information readily availeble, are any proposed contractor employees, subcontractor employees, or consultants former NRC employ ecs? ir yu. rmee ice n.mem or iwe inoe.im.no..r tam, she iermm.i.on e ie or ernployment wuh the NRC.
Oi
)J U Signatures: \\Q
\\
s
) U' MW d 'y w w fc /t-/75 Te}hhi, cal Johito Date Project Manager Date V
Ofa Nho T)pe/ print h.A b.-
/
S