313310018R0002_Amendment_No._2.pdf

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

February 16, 2018

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 31310018R0002 ENTITLED, "DESIGN

ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS” - AMENDMENT NO. 002

OFFERORS:

The purpose of this amendment is to answer offerors questions to the solicitation.

Questions regarding the NRC Design Engineering Inspection IDIQ RFP (RFP # 31310019R0002)

Question No. 1: Section L.8(d)1.A, Proposed Staffing Plan; which includes the need to provide “an employee-signed statement of availability.” This requirement appears to imply that the Government is dictating how a Company must manage its business and employees. Equally, it seems odd that the Government would include a mandate directly to a Company’s employee;

bypassing the Company’s Management. It should be the responsibility of the Company’s Management to ensure that qualified (Key) personnel are available to support the contract requirements; not individual employees.

NRC Response: Section M of the Solicitation states that “Personnel Qualifications, Experience and Availability” is the most important technical evaluation factor. The Agency has an interest in preventing offerors from employing a “bait n switch” tactic during proposal submission.

Therefore, the Solicitation requires offerors to submit employee signed statements of availability for each proposed key personnel.

Refer to section H.4 2052.215-70 Key Personnel (Jan 1993) for the NRCAR regulation. The Solicitation includes provisions for the substitution of Key Personnel when one or more of the key personnel, for whatever reason, becomes, or is expected to become, unavailable for work under the contract, or is expected to devote substantially less effort to the work than indicated in the proposal.

Question No. 2: Section L.8(d)1.B – Resumes, the Government is asking for a commitment of a specific time-availability percentage for individual employees to support this contract. As a commercial entity, we ensure that we always have qualified engineers available to support the needs of all our contracts/clients, but again, it is the responsibility of the Management, at the time when personnel are needed to determine which (qualified) engineer will be assigned to a specific tasking. I do not believe it is prudent to commit to a specified percentage for specific personnel, since we have numerous contracts/commitments with other clients, including other Government agencies, and it is Management’s responsibility to schedule qualified personnel to “match” the needs during any specific period of time. The main reason for demonstrating depth of qualified personnel is to ensure that Company’s will have the necessary flexibility in assigning qualified personnel (engineers) to all tasks as they are assigned. Although I understand the

NRC’s potential concern regarding having access to qualified engineers to support the various inspections/schedules, I am concerned about submitting a proposal that is asking for “guarantees” of time commitments for specific personnel, which then could remove that flexibility and decision-making from the Company’s Management, or face potential liability if these values are not met; simply to comply with such requirements as presented in the solicitation.

NRC Response: Section M of the Solicitation states that “Personnel Qualifications, Experience and Availability” is the most important technical evaluation factor. Section L requires resumes submitted with a proposal to specify % commitment to this project. In order to achieve an assurance of employee’s being available, the commitment percentage is used during the proposal evaluation process.