SSSB_DRFP_Q&A_Final.pdf

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

QUESTION SET A

Draft RFP related

1. P 31. 1st block. Appears to refer to Cost type of contract. Does this clause belong there?

A1. Yes. The end of the clause (pg. 33) specifies this is a Fixed Price contract.

2. P 49 - DFARS 252.232-7013 Performance Based Payments. Section (b)(i) which indicates that “At no time shall cumulative performance-based payments exceed cumulative contract cost incurred under CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003” seems to be in conflict with the Industry Day presentation that stated that payments would be based on Price.

A2. Performance-based payments are paid upon completion of specified events and each payment is a percentage of the total contract value.

3. P63 - 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor Section a). Would NAVSEA allow D&D under

Department of Energy, and/or Naval Reactor regulations experience in conjunction with the current NRC requirement? In addition, could the requirement be imposed on the offeror Team

(including subcontractors) as opposed to just the offeror?

A3. The RFP will be revised to include the offeror team collectively for this eligibility factor.

The SSSB RFP is for dismantlement and disposal of the SSSB in compliance with NRC requirements and regulations. Experience with Naval Reactors and Department of Energy projects does not provide evidence of working under NRC regulations. Thus, this aspect of the eligibility requirement is not being changed.

4. P63 - 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor Section d). Will NAVSEA remove this requirement and provide PL 85-804 in light of this solicitation being a First-Of-A-Kind nuclear project, the inability of responsible offeror’s being able to obtain commercial nuclear liability insurance, the lack of characterization on concrete shielding (per Industry Day slides), and the requirement to obtain State and Local jurisdiction approvals.

A4. NAVSEA does not intend to alter the solicitation to provide indemnification. In addition to the Navy position that this relatively low risk contract does not warrant Government indemnification, NAVSEA notes that NRC regulations also would not require commercial insurance for this type of work. See 10CFR140. This type of dismantlement and disposal work is not among the types of work for which NRC would require insurance if this were an NRC-licensed dismantlement. The amount of radioactivity contained in the SSSB is far under many other dismantlement jobs, and the SSSB falls well within the bounds of past commercial nuclear industry decommissioning experience.

5. P63 - 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor Section g). From whom does NAVSEA want this agreement: the owner of the site, the regulator, or other?

A5. This factor will be clarified to state that this agreement is with the owner of the site where the dismantlement will be performed.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

6. P63 - 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor Section h). What is the form of evidence required and from whom at the State and Local level?

A6. This factor will be extensively revised. A demonstration of informing appropriate State and

Local officials will be required, but formal and documented concurrence by those officials will not be required.

7. P63 - RFP 5.2.2 b) 3) states, “Transfer of possession of the SSSB to the method of conveyance at a location in the James River, just outside of the Huntington Ingalls Industries -

Newport News Shipbuilding facility. Identification of the location for the transfer of possession, to which the Contractor and Government shall mutually agree.”

P66 - RFP 5.4.3 Section B Pricing CLIN 001 states, “NRC recommends custody transfer.”

Is it correct to infer from the above two clauses that transfer of possession of the SSSB at a location in the James River will not occur until the NRC recommends custody transfer once they have approved the Decommissioning Plan, which based on the nominal schedule NAVSEA presented would be about 1 year into the project?

If the above is correct, will the offeror have unrestricted access to the barge prior to possession in order to complete the decommissioning work plan?

A7. Transfer of possession will not occur until the NRC recommends custody transfer.

The offeror awarded the contract will not have unrestricted access to the barge prior to custody transfer. The offeror will have access to the barge during the pre-award on-site visits, and offerors will have access to documentation available in the reading room. As noted in Item 11 below, additional water pit level radiation measurements after drain down will be provided to assist with the contractor recommendation to the NRC.

8. P67 5.4.3 Pricing

Please clarify how the 5% holdback will work. Is it a final payment of 5% when the certificate of completion is provided to NAVSEA?

A8. Correct. The final 5% of total contract value will be paid upon receipt of the Certificate of

Completion.

9. P75 – 2.0 Basis for Award. We believe LPTA is not a good selection factor for a First-Of-A-

Kind nuclear project. Will NAVSEA change their basis for award from LPTA to Best Value based on scoring of individual factors?

A9. See answer A4. The SSSB dismantlement is well within the bounds of decommissioning projects being performed in the commercial nuclear industry. NAVSEA’s chief interest is the safe disposal of the SSSB. Given the substantial protections provided by other aspects of the contract, such as the performance bond and waste easement, NAVSEA believes LPTA is the best fit for this contract. It should be noted that LPTA is a type of Best Value contract.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

10. P79 – 2.1.2.1 Factor 3 Rating. Given the requirements to submit relevant past performance in

Section L 5.3.1, which states in part, “The contracts identified shall be relevant in that they provide the most context and ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the requirements of this solicitation.”, will NAVSEA delete the acceptability of an offeror “without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned”?

A10. The Past Performance factor has been removed from the solicitation.

Re: Industry Day Brief

11. P18 of the Industry Day presentation states that

NAVSEA is taking action through HII Newport News Shipbuilding to remove and disposition the large majority of the RLW prior to turnover of the SSSB for dismantlement.

Temporary liquid transfer system [e.g., demineralizers, pumps, piping, and holding tank(s)] and soft cover [e.g., supported by a structural frame] with a HEPA filtered vent will be installed over the water pool.

Following pump-down, the liquid transfer system and cover will remain onboard for disposal as part of the Statement of Work.

The remaining water in the pool (~18” from bottom) will help minimize the movement of radioactive contamination near the bottom of the pool while removing the potential of water overflow during SSSB movement.

--Will HII Newport News Shipbuilding dispose of the waste from the water it removes or will this waste be included with liquid transfer system that will remain onboard for disposal?

--Will NAVSEA characterize the remaining ~18” of water that is left in the pool?

A11. The bulk water removed from the SSSB will be disposed of (final liquid level up to 24” from the bottom of the pool). Some residual water will remain in processing and transfer equipment. Information available in the reading room includes recent radiological characterization information from the wet pit, including water samples at various depths, wipes from the side wall at different depths, and direct radiation readings taken near the bottom of the water pool at various locations. The only additional radiological data to be provided will be surface radiation measurements at select points on the water surface after pump down along with the remaining depth of water.

12. P22 of the Industry Day presentation states that “Based upon input received from industry in response to the SSSB RFI, NAVSEA will not require commercial nuclear liability insurance for this project since it might not be available.”

If the offeror was able to obtain commercial nuclear liability insurance (or equivalent) would

NAVSEA agree that a responsible offeror would purchase such insurance and that the cost would therefore not be counted against the bid of an offeror that did not seek such insurance, or

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change alternatively that the cost would be added to the price of an offeror that did not provide such insurance?

A12. See answer A4. If the offeror elects to seek nuclear liability insurance and is able to obtain such insurance, that is a business decision of the offeror. No adjustment of the offeror’s price will be made for insurance costs.

QUESTION SET B

1. To comply with FAR 9.505, how is NAVSEA managing the unfair competitive advantage that Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), and its affiliated company(s), have when competing for the award of the SSSB contract?

B1. No company has participated in the development of the Statement of Work, and thus there is no unfair competitive advantage from that aspect. NAVSEA notes that in the commercial dismantlement industry, the company performing dismantlement is, more often than not, different from the company that owned and operated the facility being dismantled. Further, information will be provided or available for review in the Reading Room which provides details of SSSB construction and conditions. Thus, NAVSEA does not see an unfair competitive advantage.

2. Scope of Work: Does preparation of the SSSB for transport include the installation of a cover over the water pit?

B2. As part of the water removal work being funded by NAVSEA, a soft cover with HEPA filtered vent will be installed over the mostly drained water pool.

3. Scope of Work: Please describe the materials / equipment that Huntington Ingalls will use to pump the water from the water pit. How will this material / equipment remain (packaged / stored) inside of the SSSB after HII completes the removal of the water from the water pit?

B3. The RFP is being modified to describe this equipment.

4. Scope of Work: Is the water pit concrete reinforced with steel?

B4. The offeror should consult drawings available in the reading room.

5. Scope of Work: Is transportation of the SSSB within the scope of the notional framework and required Decommissioning Work Plan?

B5. No, the Decommissioning Work Plan should include work at the dismantlement site.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

6. Section L: Should the offeror plan to include in the pre-proposal inspection of the vessel surveys to determine the location of, and method and extent of radioactive material removal comparable to that required for hazardous materials (see Section L, paragraph 1.0 of the draft

RFP)?

B6. The offeror may perform radiological surveys if desired.

7. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors:

Please explain what type of documentation(s) NAVSEA is requiring from the Contractor for an easement or other contractual rights for disposal of low-level radioactive waste?

B7. The documentation should include the precise mechanism by which the offeror, if awarded the contract and NRC recommends custody transfer, will transfer to NAVSEA the right to dispose of the specified volume of low-level radioactive waste. This provision is being expanded and clarified in the RFP.

8. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors,

4.1.2 Facilities and Licensing Requirements: The DRFP contains an eligibility criterion to provide demonstrated ability to provide an easement, or other contractual rights, for the Navy to dispose of up to 500,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste from the dismantlement of the

SSSB to be effective upon the date the Contractor takes possession of the SSSB.

Since the right for disposal only needs to be effective upon the date the Contractor takes possession of the SSSB, please clarify what would constitute ‘demonstrated ability’ at the time the offer is submitted.

B8(a). The radioactive waste easement provision is in some respects comparable to the performance bond. Just as the offeror would have to provide documented agreement from a financial institution to provide the required bond, the offeror will have to provide documented agreement from a radioactive waste disposal company to provide the (revised) amount of waste disposal capacity that NAVSEA can use at no additional cost to the Government beyond the

SSSB contract price. NAVSEA has full confidence that radioactive waste disposal capacity is available, and that companies can make arrangements for such disposal. The radioactive waste easement is a form of financial assurance that the successful offeror will complete the job. As an alternative, the offeror may provide an additional 30% performance bond if the offeror concludes that it is too difficult to provide the easement. Either form of assurance is equally acceptable.

Finally, although we understand that the Government does not intend to authorize the use of

Federal waste disposal sites as a part of this contract, we recommend that the Government not foreclose this option in the event there are specific items that would incur an unusually high cost to dispose at a commercial facility.

B8(b). Given the relatively low curie content of the SSSB, NAVSEA does not see any advantage to the Government in dealing with Federal waste disposal sites. Use of commercial disposal sites is consistent with the commercial nuclear dismantlement industry model that

NAVSEA is using for the SSSB.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

9. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors,

4.1.2 Facilities and Licensing Requirements: Since the Federal government is responsible by law for the disposal of radioactive waste owned or generated by the Navy as a result of the decommissioning of vessels of the Navy, why is the dismantlement contractor required to obtain an easement for disposal of the radioactive waste from the dismantlement of the SSSB?

B9. See answer B8(a). In addition, although the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) does list disposal of waste from decommissioning of vessels of the Navy as a Federal responsibility, state-licensed commercial disposal facilities are generally willing and able to provide for such disposal.

10. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors:

How did NAVSEA determine the radiologically impacted materials associated with the SSSB meet 10% of the NRC Class A limit? (e.g. characterization data, process / historical knowledge, etc.). Should the Contractor expect to encounter any Mixed Fission Products from damaged or derogated nuclear fuel that may have been managed or encountered in the water pit?

B10. NAVSEA has not made any determination that any or all radioactive waste will be less than 10% of NRC Class A. Based on radiological characterization information available in the reading room, NAVSEA expects that an experienced offeror will have little difficulty demonstrating that all SSSB waste to be less than 10% of Class A. NAVSEA has made available in the reading room some water sample and sidewall wipe sample data from the wet pit in which no fission products were detectable in the samples.

11. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors:

How did NAVSEA determine the Alternative approach for the Contractor to provide an additional performance bond of 30%?

B11. NAVSEA wanted offerors who do not own a radioactive waste disposal site to be able to compete on a level playing field with other offerors who might own such a site. NAVSEA considers both alternatives to provide a roughly equal financial assurance to NAVSEA.

12. 4.0 Requirements/Task Orders, 5.2.1 Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, 2.1 Evaluation Factors: If the Contractor elects the Alternate approach to provide an additional performance bond of 30%, does the Contractor need to carry this Bond through the completion of the Contract or the completion of radiological disposal?

B12. The bond should be carried through completion of the contract.

13. Evaluation for Award 1.0 General: Would NAVSEA please explain why Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable was selected as the process for the award?

B13. NAVSEA considers LPTA to be appropriate for this well-defined job.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

14. The Decommissioning and Disposal Activities for the MH-1A Sturgis Nuclear Reactor

Barge, a project of similar size, scope, and complexity to that of the SSSB, utilized a Best Value trade-off approach as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District selection process for the award. In this situation for this one-off project, the USACE determined it was in their best interest to consider an award to other than the lowest cost Contractor or other than the highest technically rated Contractor. The USACE process permitted tradeoffs among cost or cost and non-cost factors and allows the USACE to accept other than the lowest cost proposal.

The USACE evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, were significantly more important than cost alone.

Based upon NAVSEA’s describing this project as a first-of-a-kid, a one-off for the Naval

Reactor Program, would NAVSEA please reconsider their position on LPTA? A Best Value tradeoff is the most fitting allowing for tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows NAVSEA to accept other than the lowest-priced proposal.

B14. NAVSEA does not intend to comment on the contracting strategies selected by another military department or the specific circumstances involved.

15. 5.0 Proposal Content & 2.1 Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor: The Contractor is to provide a performance bond valued at 20% of the total contract price at the time the

Contractor takes possession of the SSSB. Does this mean NAVSEA will retain ownership of the vessel and the radioactive materials found on board of the vessel?

B15. NAVSEA retains ownership of the SSSB or the portions remaining of the SSSB as it is dismantled. After disposal or recycling of all parts of the SSSB, NAVSEA will no longer own the SSSB.

16. 5.0 Proposal Content & 2.1 Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor: Please provide the “as is” condition of the SSSB when the Contractor takes possession?

B16. NAVSEA is not providing an extensive radiological or hazardous materials characterization of the SSSB, but rather is providing the SSSB “as is.” The offeror may make whatever judgements he or she deems fit based on the information available in the reading room, as well as the prevalence of specific hazardous materials routinely encountered in vessels dating from the time the SSSB was built and converted into an SSSB.

17. 5.0 Proposal Content & 2.1 Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor: Please provide an example of what NAVSEA is looking for in the way of a “Corporate Agreement” to perform this contract without nuclear indemnification under Public Law 85-804?

B17. The offeror will need to acknowledge in the offer that the offeror understands that no 85-

804 indemnification is being provided, and the offeror intends to complete the work without 85-

804 indemnification.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

18. Nuclear Indemnification: Eligibility Criterion – Waiver of Public Law 85-804

Indemnification

The SSSB is a converted World War II merchant ship. Despite a refurbishment in the 1980s, NAVSEA has acknowledged numerous unknowns and risks associated with the ‘as-is’ condition of the SSSB including concerns with the integrity of the hull structure. The RFP requires offerors to conduct a pre-proposal inspection of the vessel to assess the scope of work required. This would include but is not limited to the assessment of hull condition for transport to the dismantlement site and the location and extent of hazardous materials in the SSSB. However, the time available for these inspections is limited. NAVSEA specifically declines to warrant the sufficiency of its data on hazardous materials and makes no representation on the sufficiency of its data for radioactive materials. Although we believe that NAVSEA intends to retain ownership of the SSSB during the execution of dismantlement work, all risks and liability associated with the SSSB and its condition are borne by the dismantlement contractor after possession is transferred. In the unlikely case of a significant unplanned release of radioactive materials from the SSSB, the possible claims against and loss to the contractor could be so large that the full potential risks would exceed available insurance leaving the contractor’s financial and productive ability in jeopardy.

B18. No change in indemnification posture is being made.

19. Nuclear Indemnification: Can Federal ownership of the waste provide a path to invoking

Price Anderson Amendments Act indemnification for the dismantlement work?

B19. NAVSEA does not consider that Price Anderson Amendments Act indemnification applies to SSSB disposal. See answer A4. NAVSEA notes that even if this work were being done by an

NRC licensee under NRC direct regulation, NRC regulations in 10CFR140 pursuant to the

PAAA would not require commercial liability insurance.

20. 5.0 Proposal Content, 2.1 Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor: Contractors are to provide a written agreement and plan to subcontract at least 20% of the contract value to small business. Does the NAVSEA have any predetermined percentage(s) that must be subcontracted to the Socioeconomic Small Business Categories?

B20. No, 20% of the overall contract value must be subcontracted to small business, but the

20% is not divided into different Socioeconomic Small Business Categories.

21. Representations and Certifications: The North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336611 - Ship Building and Repairing. Definition of

NAICS Code 336611: This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating a shipyard. Shipyards are fixed facilities with drydocks and fabrication equipment capable of building a ship, defined as watercraft typically suitable or intended for other than personal or recreational use. Activities of shipyards include the construction of ships, their repair, conversion and alteration, the production of prefabricated ship and barge sections, and specialized services, such as ship scaling.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

Based on the requirements of the Scope of Work for this acquisition we recommend the NAICS code be changed to 562910 – Environmental Remediation Services. Definition of NAICS Code

562910: This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the following: Remediation and cleanup of contaminated buildings, mine sites, soil, or ground water; Integrated mine reclamation activities, including demolition, soil remediation, waste water treatment, hazardous material removal, contouring land, and revegetation; and Asbestos, lead paint, and other toxic material abatement.

B21. NAVSEA does not intend to change the NAICS code at this point.

22. 4.3.1 Dismantlement and Disposal: Could NAVSEA please provide the driver(s) behind the requirement to disposal or sell any scrap and reusable equipment/materials removed from the

SSSB within 30-days after the completion of the dismantlement?

B22. The 30-day time frame has been removed from the solicitation.

23. Pricing Summary Chart, 5.4.3 Section B Pricing: Could NAVSEA please provide an inventory, description, and characterization of the water processing system and radioactive equipment in the dry pit. What is meant by heavy equipment ship? Could you please describe the hot tunnel and its location?

B23. The offeror should consult with material available in the reading room. No additional information is being gathered or offered.

24. Historical Documentation: Could NAVSEA please provide historical document(s) and/or a summary of historical maintenance, upgrades, or repairs that were done to the water pit, the water processing system, and the hull of the SSSB?

B24. The offeror should consult with material available in the reading room. No additional

25. Waste and Material Type: Is the Contractor expected to encounter any low-level mixed waste? If so, could you please describe the material and its location, and provide characterization data.

B25. The offeror should consult with material available in the reading room. No additional

26. Question and Comment Period: Since access to the Reading Room will not be granted until

7 August 2019, we request that NAVSEA extend the question and comment period to the Draft

RFP until 30 August 2019?

B26. The Government is currently assessing another time period for Reading Room access and an additional Question and Answer period.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

27. Notional Framework: Is it correct that the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program will continue to assert sole regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act for radiation and radioactivity associated with the SSSB?

B27. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program intends to exercise its regulatory authority by working with the NRC in accordance with the Framework, and as described in the RFP.

28. Notional Framework: To properly represent NAVSEA’s commitments, please change the last sentence of the Notional Framework to read: “NAVSEA will enforce the NRC’s recommended actions by contract, without any addition to or subtraction from, the NRC’s recommendations.”

B28. The Notional Framework was developed in cooperation with the NRC in 2018. This framework was shared with industry in 2018. No significant changes were made as a result of comments from industry or NRC. As such, the “Notional Framework” is being invoked in this

RFP and in the Navy’s Interagency Agreement with the NRC. In that sense, the Framework is no longer “notional”, but rather will become part of the contract. In order to reduce confusion about what has been changed and what hasn’t been changed, NAVSEA has elected to retain the full text of the Notional Framework even though it is no longer “notional”. NAVSEA will be contractually bound to “enforce the NRC’s recommended actions by contract, without any addition to or subtraction from, the NRC’s recommendations.”

29. Decommissioning Work Plan: Is it correct that the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program in its regulation of SSSB dismantlement will not enforce NNPP requirements that are not contained in the Decommissioning Work Plan?

Is it correct that, similar to other NRC recommendations, that NAVSEA will not add to or subtract from the Decommissioning Work Plan that the NRC recommends to NAVSEA for approval?

B29. Both statements are correct.

30. Notional Framework: In the absence of an NRC license, is it correct that the contract for

SSSB dismantlement provides the authorization required under the Atomic Energy Act for the dismantlement contractor to possess the radioactivity contained in the SSSB?

B30. That is correct.

31. 3.1 Proposal Format: Please allow a smaller font for Tables so long as clearly legible. The current 8-point allowance only seems to apply to “graphics” (which we assume to mean Figures) and not specifically to Tables that are used to present data or other similar information.

B31. The solicitation’s table font allowance will be decreased to 6-point.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

32. 3.1 Proposal Format: Please delete the requirement for double-sided printing, which is difficult to work with from proposal preparation and hard-copy production/binding standpoint.

B32. The solicitation’s printing requirement will be changed to single-sided.

33. Pricing Summary Chart, G-232-H002 Payment Instructions and Contract Type Summary for

Payment Office: Payment events appear to be reliant on a third-party (the NRC) in which

Contractor has no control over. These three (3) separate payment events total of 35% of the contract price. How does NAVSEA interagency agreement with the NRC address this concern?

We request that NAVSEA update the Pricing Summary Chart by changing out the three NRC payment events for payment events that are within the contractor’s control.

B33. The SSSB is being done under NRC regulations. In the commercial decommissioning industry, companies routinely contract to perform decommissioning work in accordance with

NRC regulations, and subject to NRC inspections and reviews. NAVSEA expects offerors to have sufficient experience in working with NRC regulations such that the offeror does, in fact, have control over ensuring that the offeror’s actions comply with NRC regulations.

34. General Provisions: If Federal Nuclear Indemnification cannot be extended by NAVSEA to the SSSB D&D Contractor, we request NAVSEA to cap the Limitation on Liability at 100% of the contract value.

B34. No change is being made.

35. General Provisions: The draft RFP does not include a Force Majeure Clause or equivalent language. We request NAVSEA include FAR 52.249-14 Excusable Delays into the final RFP.

B35. NAVSEA does not contemplate adding this clause at this time.

36. General Provisions: The draft RFP does not include Differing Site Conditions Language. We request NAVSEA include FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions into the final RFP.

B36. The SSSB is being offered “as is”, and NAVSEA is making no representation about SSSB conditions.

37. General Provisions: We request NAVSEA please include FAR 52.249-2 with Alternate I into the final RFP.

B37. NAVSEA does not contemplate adding this clause at this time.

38. Contract Type: Given the substantial unknowns and risks associated with the as-is condition of the SSSB, including concerns with the integrity of the hull structure and the amount of radioactive material present (including in the concrete surrounding the water pit) that will not be able to be resolved via limited ship checks prior to execution of the dismantlement effort, would

NAVSEA please consider changing the contract type from “Firm-Fixed Price” to “Hybrid”

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

(Firm-Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursable), or an Indefinitely Delivery Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract?

B38. No change is being made.

39. Factor 1 – Eligibility: The DRFP includes as an eligibility criterion evidence that the State and local jurisdictions do not have any objection to this type of work being conducted in that

State and jurisdiction. During the July 30 industry day, NAVSEA stated this evidence should be in the form of letters from the affected jurisdictions. We understand the Government’s desire for early engagement with State and local officials to ensure that any concerns are identified and addressed early in the process. However, asking offerors to initiate and complete engagements with affected jurisdictions before submission of a proposal may be counterproductive in establishing trust and confidence.

B39. This eligibility requirement is being substantially revised. See answer A6.

QUESTION SET C

1. Please provide the list of attendees from the Pre-solicitation SSSB Site Tour, June 25 to June

27, 2019.

C1. NAVSEA will not provide the optional site visit list of attendees at this time.

2. Please provide the list of attendees from the Pre-solicitation Industry Day, July 30, 2019.

C2. The list of attendees from the July 30th Industry Day was posted on FBO on August 20th, 2019.

3. Section K, 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications, (a)(1): The North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336611. This NAICS code covers Ship Building and Repairing. Please consider changing the NAICS code to 562910 –

Remediation Services.

C3. NAVSEA does not contemplate changing the NAICS code at this time.

4. Section L 5.2, Volume I – Technical Proposal: The total page limit for the Technical

Proposal is listed as 50 pages and Factor 2 – Technical Capabilities Factor is limited to 25 pages. Section L 5.2.2 Factor 2 – Technical Capabilities: Requires the submittal of material that demonstrate the contractor’s management and technical experience to perform the scope of work, plans for preparing the Decommissioning Work Plan and Towing Plan and five (5) additional plans. In order to provide all this information, we request an additional 25 pages for this factor and an increase to 75 total pages for the Technical Proposal.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

C4. The requirements for plans in the Technical Proposal were changed significantly. Please see the formal RFP when issued.

5. Section L 5.2.1, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, (h): Requires evidence that the State and local jurisdictions do not have any objection to this type of work being conducted in that State and jurisdiction. USACE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) that included several potential locations to perform the Sturgis decommissioning. The City of Galveston, Texas was identified in this EA. However, when the barge arrived in Galveston, the project was shut down for approximately 6 months while c worked with USACE to gain approval from the city to perform the decommissioning. Therefore, we request a total of 120 days to submit a proposal. This will provide time for all contractors to receive a letter or other evidence of approval from the State and local jurisdiction to perform the scope of work.

C5. This factor will be extensively revised. A demonstration of consultation with appropriate

State and Local officials will be required, but formal and documented concurrence by those officials will not be required.

6. Section L 5.2.1, Factor 1 – Eligibility Factor, (a): Requires evidence that the offeror has completed as the prime contractor, under NRC license and regulation, at least one radiological decommissioning, dismantlement or remediation project with a contract value of at least $50M.

In order to meet this requirement, will the Navy allow an offeror to submit evidence of a project completed under similar license and regulation to the NRC, such as the Army Reactor Office?

C6. See answer A3. Work for the Army Reactor Office on Sturgis did not involve working with

NRC reviews and inspections, and thus would not qualify as working under NRC license and regulation.

7. The draft RFP states that the Navy will transfer possession of the SSSB to the contractor. Please confirm the Navy does not intend to transfer title/ownership of the SSSB to the contractor.

C7. The Navy will not transfer title or ownership of the SSSB.

QUESTION SET D

1. Will NAVSEA allow bidder’s to access the Reading Room during the month of September to align with the SSSB walk down time period?

D1. See answer B26.

2. NAVSEA indicated that the delivery dates specified in the draft RFP are approximate, but the RFP states in Section F that “Dismantlement and disposal are to be completed within 36 months of award.” Is this a hard and fast requirement for completion?

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

D2. The RFP has been modified to remove the intermediate deadlines. While there is no regulatory or legal deadline for the time by which the Navy must dispose of the SSSB, there are some time restrictions on the funding available to the Navy for execution of this contract.

3. When will the $50M eligibility factor (i.e., step 5.2.1a of Section L) be considered effective

(i.e., upon proposal submittal, prior to end of year, prior to award, etc.)?

D3. See answer A3. The five year period consists of the five years prior to the date of the offer.

Since accounting and reporting systems are often based on annual terms, this five year term can include going back to the beginning of the year in which the five year period starts.

4. Step 4.1.2.3 of Section C mandates that Contractor shall provide office facilities for the

Government for up to four (4) personnel.

Does this requirement apply to only to the dismantlement work location? Will NAVSEA or NRC have personnel permanently stationed in this office?

D4. This applies to the dismantlement location. NAVSEA expects to have a representative stationed at the dismantlement site. NRC will determine the timing and extent of its on-site presence, consistent with NRC’s practice at sites with similar work.

5. Is the local/state letter of “No Objection” absolutely required? We feel this is unnecessary and could result in unnecessary political complications. If the local/state laws don’t prevent this type of work, then by default the work is acceptable.

D5. This factor will be extensively revised. A demonstration of informing appropriate State and

Local officials will be required, but formal and documented concurrence by those officials will not be required.

QUESTION SET E

1. Page 63, Section 5.2.1, states “Provide written corporate agreement to perform this contract without nuclear indemnification under Public Law 85-804”. Why does this project not include

Nuclear Indemnification and require written corporate agreement to perform work without said indemnification?

NAVSEA continues to deny providing indemnification (PL 85-804) for this project despite being informed that there is no adequate commercial nuclear liability insurance to cover the

Contractor’s risks. As previously provided in the SSSB RFI response (Question 7), commercial nuclear liability insurance is not available for this project. Because the intent of this project is to successfully pilot the dismantlement of retired nuclear Navy vessels under the application of

NRC guidelines at a fixed price, providing indemnification through PL 85-804 allows proposals

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change to be presented based on best practices and less on the cost of risk mitigation. It seems unlikely that future CVN projects could be contracted without providing this indemnification, so this reluctance to provide it for the SSSB remains a great concern.

E1. See answer A4. There is no NRC requirement in 10CFR 140 for insurance for licensees handling and processing moderate quantities of byproduct material. There is precedence for companies handling similar amounts of radioactive material electing not to carry such insurance.

NAVSEA will not require such insurance, nor will the Navy extend 85-804 indemnification for

SSSB work.

2. Why Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Proposal Request versus a Cost Type Contract?

Additionally, the stated Regulatory Approach between the Contractor, NAVSEA and the NRC is still notional, and this new approach may result in significant delays as it is first put into practice, e.g., regulatory reviews and approvals between agencies with the Contractor idling at significant and unforeseen costs.

E2. See answer B38. Also, see answer B28 on the Notional Framework. This framework is being incorporated into the Interagency Agreement with NRC, and into this contract, and thus is no longer “notional”. NAVSEA believes that sufficient commercial experience exists both with radiological dismantlement and dealing with the hazards typically encountered in old vessels to allow for fixed price contracting of SSSB.

3. Can the Government provide clarification regarding co-generation and ownership of waste?

Page 6, Section 2.1 states that the NRC will provide “…recommendation for NAVSEA to approve transfer of custody of the SSSB and associated radioactivity to the Contractor…”. Page

8, Section 4.1.2.1 Notes states “The Government will not be a co-permittee on any permit or licenses obtained by the Contractor or a co-generator of any waste material.”

The proposed scope of work states that the Government will not be a co-generator of waste for the SSSB. Since this project will be a transfer of possession and not a transfer of ownership, we believe the Government would be legally required to be a co-generator of the radiological waste material. Was this point strictly referring to hazardous waste streams? While ship recycling companies have been the generator of hazardous regulated waste streams for former naval vessels, we remain concerned regarding the generation and documentation of specifically radiological wastes (including mixed wastes). Regardless of the contractual provisions, Contractor respondents are not the generator of the curies, the U.S. Navy is; and therefore, under typical NRC-regulated facilities responsibility, the Navy bears ultimate responsibility for their care, control, and final disposition. We believe this needs to be verified and clarified for proposal development.

E3. The Statement of Work states; “The Contractor shall complete the dismantling of the SSSB in a facility within the United States of America, and remove and properly dispose of radiological and/or hazardous materials/wastes in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.”

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

Experience with dismantling and recycling of nonnuclear Navy ships has not indicated that there is any difficulty for companies to dispose of RCRA hazardous and/or PCB wastes.

For low level radioactive wastes there are several aspects of law and regulation applicable to radioactive waste that will be generated in the dismantlement and disposal of the SSSB. Clearly the radioactivity within the SSSB originated during Navy operations. Also, the SSSB is a Navy-owned vessel.

The LLRWPAA of 1985 includes radioactive wastes generated as a result of decommissioning of Navy vessels as one of several types of radioactive waste that are a Federal responsibility for disposal. DOE radioactive waste is another such waste. The LLRWPAA, however, does not prohibit licensed radioactive waste disposal sites from disposing of Federal-responsible radioactive waste. Commercial radioactive waste disposal sites routinely compete for the business of disposing of waste that is Federal responsibility under the LLRWPAA.

The interstate compacts formed pursuant to the LLRWPAA also can affect which disposal sites might be available for disposal of SSSB waste. For a mobile vessel like the SSSB, it is not totally clear which state would be considered the state of origin for wastes generated during

SSSB disassembly. Some compacts could consider the last state in which the SSSB was productively used (Virginia) to be the state of origin. Other compacts might consider the state where the SSSB is dismantled to be the state of origin. Regardless, the state of origin does not appear to be a significant impediment to radioactive waste in the commercial nuclear dismantlement industry. Most nuclear power plant dismantlements are being conducted in out-of-compact states. There is adequate capacity and competition for disposal of out-of-compact waste.

Since the commercial nuclear dismantlement industry does not have any apparent difficulty finding low level radioactive waste capacity, the Navy does not see any need for the Navy to make arrangements with DOE for Federal radioactive waste disposal services or the WCS

Federal Cell, particularly given the low radioactivity concentration wastes expected to be generated during SSSB disposal. The SSSB RFP does not prohibit such disposal, but the Navy will not take any actions to arrange for DOE participation for SSSB-related waste disposal.

A significant aspect of radioactive waste disposal is compliance by the entity preparing and shipping radioactive waste to meet the requirements of the disposal site. Consistent with the

Statement of work, the contractor performing the SSSB dismantlement would be responsible for meeting these requirements.

The NRC Uniform Waste Manifest includes a box to check for which sector of industry or government a radioactive waste comes from. Available codes in the instructions for this form include Government – G, Fuel Cycle - FC, Nuclear Power - NP, University (Academic) - A, Medical – M, Industrial - I, or Other – 0. In order for national radioactive waste statistics to reflect the origin of the wastes, the Navy would have no objection to listing G for SSSB waste as that designation accurately reflects the origin of the radioactivity.

Just as the commercial nuclear dismantlement industry does not appear to have any difficulty disposing of radioactive waste, even out-of-compact, the Navy sees no impediment to the SSSB contractor arranging for disposal of SSSB waste. Similarly, there appears to be no problem with disposal of mixed radioactive and RCRA and/or PCB waste, including out-of-compact.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

To complete the work outlined in the Statement of Work, the contractor will need to characterize all radioactive and mixed waste, package the waste, ship the waste, and select and make arrangements for the disposal site. The Navy will not perform these tasks with the contractor. The Navy will not participate in any required qualifications or certifications required by disposal sites. The Navy will not prepare or sign shipping manifests. However, the Navy has no objection to the contractor citing the fact that the radioactivity in SSSB waste originated in

Navy operations, or that SSSB radioactive or mixed waste was generated pursuant to a contract with the Navy to dismantle and dispose of the SSSB. The contractor is free to cite these facts in the course of making arrangements for disposal of waste resulting from dismantlement of the

SSSB.

4. Who will be the Regulatory Oversight Lead for the SSSB? How do we prevent duplication, confusion and additional costs? Will this take Congressional action to accomplish? Does the

Government intend to release the Interagency Agreement between the Navy and NRC before the issuance of the Final Request for Proposal?

Page 6, Section C 1.0 states “…the Navy has established a process with the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC)) for technical and contractual implementation of NRC regulations governing the disposal of the SSSB. The Contractor shall comply with NRC radiological regulations and decommissioning plan requirements.”

While some duplication of efforts may be unavoidable, if it is truly the intent of NAVSEA to

“enforce the NRC’s recommended actions by contract, without any addition to or subtraction from, the NRC’s recommendations,” as noted in the Notional Framework for Regulation, interaction between the decommissioning contractor company and the NRC should be as direct as possible. In our team’s case, we would request approval to communicate directly with the

NRC during the review of the Decommissioning Work Plan and the preparation of the Technical

Evaluation Report and ensure copies of all correspondence are provided to NAVSEA for information only. If NAVSEA identifies specific subjects to which they have an objection, they can directly communicate those to the NRC. The NRC could, in turn, provide that information to our team as comments to the Decommissioning Work Plan. We believe this would provide for the most efficient communication of all information, submittals, reviews, and issues.

In addition, Page 11, item 4.3.1.6 states: “The Contractor shall provide copies of all correspondence with Federal, State, or local regulatory agencies relating to the Contract within

24 hours of receipt. This shall include but not be limited to: immediate notification of any regulatory agency inspection conducted, Contractor Summarization of the regulatory agency inspection and results, and immediate notification of any Notice of Violations, citations, or cautionary notices (or equivalent) received from regulators during the reporting period, relating to the performance of this Contract.” Here it is assumed that the Contractor will have direct interaction with the NRC. Under the Notional Framework however, there could be some overlap with this information reporting to NAVSEA from both the NRC and the Contractor. Lastly, with respect to dual agency oversight and the decommissioning plans and approvals, coupled with tight schedule complications (scheduling the transport of the vessel during non-hurricane season, etc.) we request the potential for schedule impacts to be minimized with a predetermined review and comment period of the plans.

PLEASE NOTE: Until a final Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued, the answers below are tentative and subject to change

E4. The Notional Framework, concurred with by the NRC and presented at the 2018 Industry

Day, provides a detailed description of the regulatory framework. This framework is consistent with the recommendations of GAO Report 18-523 NAVSEA and NRC do not consider any

Congressional action is needed to proceed with the SSSB work under this Framework.

NAVSEA will make available the…