questions.docx

1. The hours identified in Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs, page B-1 of the RFQ appear to be inconsistent with the hours provided in Technical Exhibit 3. When reviewing Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs, page B-1, the sum of the hours identified for all years is 17,763 hours. The total hours from both the Technical Exhibit 3, “Estimated Work Load Data,” on page C-28 and the total hours from Section L.9, “2052.216-70 Level of Effort (Jan 1993) on page L-4 identify the total hours being 15,026 hours.

Answer: I can confirm that the appropriate value should be 15,026 hours.

1. Please clarify if the amount identified for Travel in Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs, page B-1, is for the first year only or for all five years. If the travel is for all five years as the verbiage in parentheses states, a project travel budget of $43,000 dollars appears inadequate. Note: approximately 25% of the travel budget provided in Travel in Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs, page B-1, would be used for personnel to attend the Kick-Off meeting.

Answer: The appropriate travel costs for the “life of the project” concerning both Orders should be $273,000. The government estimated that by calculating $2,000.00 per site visit (66 sites for two Orders 49 and 51) plus a kick-off meeting for Order 49 and Order 51.

1. The Performance Work Statement (PWS), Part 1, Section 1.5.1, “Tasks,” Task 1, “Technical Coordination/Kick-off Meeting,” on page C-6 states in part:

… The meeting will be held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland and will last a maximum of 5 days. The first day will cover information concerning both Orders. The meeting will provide training and guidance on the NRC desired review and analysis activities (contract tasks), deliverables, communication protocols, technical consultation with appropriate NRC staff, handling sensitive unclassified information, NRC badge requirements, standards for safety evaluation review and requests for additional information, inspection report writing and formatting, Microsoft requirements etc. The following four days will be detailed training and technical meetings to prepare the Contractor concerning Order EA-12-051 covering information related to this section of the PWS…

The travel budget for Task 1 as provided in Section 1.26, “Contractor Travel” on page C-16 is $10,000 dollars for all personnel (approximately 6 individuals) required to attend the kick-off meeting.

As provided in Technical Exhibit 3, “Estimated Workload Data,” the 50 hours for Task 1 related to Order EA-12-49 is adequate to support six individuals for one day. However, the 100 hours to support Order EA-12-51 appears to be inadequate to support six individuals for the remaining four days. Please provide clarification.

Answer: Concerning the Kickoff meeting for the 49 Order it is anticipated that a PM + 5 engineers/staff would attend the first day, 50 hours worth, at a travel cost of approximately $4000.

Kickoff meeting for the 51 Order anticipates that a PM + 2 technical engineers attend the following four days of training at an approximate travel cost of $5000.

The information in Section 1.26 should have been represented as “approximately 8 individuals” and the fewer numbers of engineers between Orders is based on the depth and breadth of the technical detail involved.

Further it is anticipated that the same PM contractor would lead the effort for both Orders within the same firm, and that the Day 1 training Order 49 personnel may differ from the Order 51 personnel attending the final four days of kickoff based on personnel background and expertise.

1. RFQ NRC-HQ-13-R-03-0023 defines the statement of work (SOW) as being Tasks 1 though 4 on pages C-6 though C-8. In various other areas of the RFP, references are provided that relate to Tasks 5 through 10, however Tasks 5 through 10 are not defined in the RFP SOW. It appears that the references to Tasks 5 through 10 are a carryover from the previous DRAFT SOW that was issued with the Sources Sought Solicitation No. NRC-NRR-13-001. For clarification purposes, is the following an acceptable crosswalk between existing RFP SOW and the previous DRAFT SOW:

Answer:No, this is not an acceptable cross walk as I think it will perpetuate the task number arrangement & versions that have been created through drafting stage to now.

Simply and additionally, our intention is to have the contractor work broken in to two large portions.

The first (to become Task Order 1) is made up of tasks 1, 2 and 3 shown ending on page C-8 of the current document and this represents the kickoff, evaluation and technical/office review of the integration plans for both orders. This first effort is represented as the “Year One” section on page B-1 of the current document and correlates to 5944 engineering/ support hours of activities.

The second effort (to become Task Order 2) is made of the remaining task orders in the current document, and the remaining portion of the chart on page B-1. This effort is the balance of 6082 hours of engineering/support activities.

1. PWS, Part 1, Section 1.23, “Key Personnel,” provides the following statement: “Qualifications of the contract/task order manager and alternate are listed below.” Section 1.23 appears to require that the Contractor provide for a Project Manager and an alternate, and an appropriate number of Principal Engineers and Principal Scientists, the number of which is “TBD.” However, qualification requirements defined in PWS, Part 1, Section 1.24 are only for the Principal Engineers and Principal Scientists. Are there additional qualifications to be considered in this section for the Project Manager and the alternate, or are the qualifications to be considered consistent with PWS, Part 1, Section 1.24, “Key Personnel Qualification Requirements?”

Answer: I believe we can use some boiler plate qualifications for what a contractor engineering manager has to be. I only further believe that the individual should have a solid, technical nuclear-related background.

1. PWS, Part 1, Section 1.24, “Key Personnel Qualification Requirements” page C-14 states in part:

“In regards to Order EA-12-049, the Contractor’s key personnel must have demonstrated experience in the following (to include but not limited to Principal Engineers and Principal Scientists);”

“8. Conducting or supporting the conduct of audits and/or inspections at sites as directed by NRC staff, to confirm the effectiveness of licensee response to Order EA-12-049 in accordance with developed and approved schedules.”

“In regards to Order EA-12-051, the Contractor’s key personnel must have demonstrated experience in the following (to include but not limited to Principal Engineers and Principal Scientists);”

“9. Conducting or supporting the conduct of audits and/or inspections at sites as directed by NRC staff, to confirm the effectiveness of licensee response to SFP instrumentation requirements, in accordance with developed and approved schedules.”

For clarification, should Item 8 for EA-12-049 and Item 9 for EA-12-051 be for similar types/experiences of audits and/or inspections. Since this is the first time audits and/or inspections would be completed associated with EA-12-049 and EA-12-051, it is not possible for contractor personnel to meet the requirements as written.

Answer: Yes the intent of this sentence is better written as “similar types/experiences”

1. Part IV. Section L.9, “2052.216-70 Level of Effort (Jan 1993) on page L-4, states in part: “The NRC's estimate of the total effort for this project is approximately 14,270 professional and 756 clerical staff-years for the duration of this contract.” We assume that “staff-years” should be “staff-hours”

Answer: Yes, staff-hours is correct.

1. In Section C (page C-1), it states the type of competition is “Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources (i.e. Small Business Set-aside). Is it correct to assume it is a Full and Open competition; not a small business set-aside procurement?

Answer: This contract shall be awarded as a Small Business Set-Aside IDIQ Contract.

1. In Section C (page C-1), it states the Period of Performance is “Date of award through December 31, 2016”. If this is the intent of Government, even if it is awarded by January 1, 2013, it will not be a five year IDIQ stated in Section B. The period of performance seems being four (4) years: i.e. 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Answer: The period of performance for this IDIQ contract is five (5) year from contract award. The NRC also anticipates awarding labor hour task orders under this IDIQ contract.

1. Task defined in section 1.5.1 Tasks (page: C-6), L2052.216-70 (page: L-4), and Technical Exhibit 1 (pages C-21 to C-24) did not identify all 7 tasks. It only identified 4 tasks. Can you provide PWS for Task 5, Task 6, and Task 7?

Answer: There are only four tasks associated with this requirement. Here is the updated workload breakdown based on 4 tasks.

The overall estimated level of effort for work under this SOW concerning Order EA-12-49 is provided below.

The overall estimated level of effort for work under this SOW concerning Order EA-12-51 is provided below.

Task

Labor Category

Level of Effort (hours)

Principal Engineer or Scientist Principal Engineer or Scientist

Program Support for Order EA-12-051

Total: 15,026 hours

11. Hours identified in Section B are not the same as the hours identified in L2052.216-70 (page: L-4).

Answer: The correct number of hours is 15,026. The following table is an estimate of the hours and when the NRC anticipates needing the hours.

Year One

Year Two

Year Three

Year Four

Year Five

12. Is it reasonable to assume there are three (3) Labor Categories: Project Manager, Principal Engineer or Scientist, and Program Support? Can an Offeror further subdivide each Labor Category to additional levels (such as I, II, III, or IV)?

Answer: The NRC anticipates using those three labor categories. However, if the offeror has junior staff in the categories that can meet the requirements and qualifications they are allowed to submit those in the proposal.

13. Can you identify the “type of contract”? Is it cost reimbursable, time & materials, firm-fixed price, or another type of contract?

Answer: The NRC will award an IDIQ contract with task orders to be award on a Labor hours basis.

14. Can you provide clear guidance of pricing proposal? Do you expect us to provide labor category rate, indirect rates, other direct cost, and profit in details and with supporting document? What are required forms and pricing elements to allow Government to perform its analysis?

Answer: The NRC anticipates awarding the Labor Hours task ordering using fully burdened rates. Therefore, the contract needs to supply supplemental information to allow the NRC the ability to determine these rates fair and reasonable. The contract can submit the following information in terms of supplemental information to support their rates: a GSA schedule contract that has these rates, a commercial catalog containing these rates, any other government contract (or invoice) that used these rates or you could provide unburdened rates (with payroll information to verify these rates), as well as a copy of your DCAA approved indirect rates to show how the contract arrived at the fully burdened rates.