amendment No 1.docx

TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS:

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT ONE (1) TO NRC-RFP-41-10-013

The purpose of this amendment is (1) to clarify Section M. Criterion #3, (2) to revise Section 10 of the Statement of Work, (3) to provide clarifications based on questions received from potential offerors and (4) to extend the due date for submittal of proposals by one week, to no later than 1:00 p.m. EST on Monday, May 24, 2010.

Therefore, the following revisions are made:

1. Section M.2.(l)(3) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following (revisions highlighted):

3. Project Management 15 points Extent to which the proposed management plan technical proposal demonstrates that the offeror can effectively oversee this project, effectively manage project tasks, and meet schedules. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates the ability to establish and implement quality control programs, efficiently and effectively manage and control costs, manage subcontractors, and be responsive to changing workload and resource requirements.

2. Section 10.0 of the Statement of Work entitled “USE OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following (revisions highlighted):

10.0 USE OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

The contractor shall update, implement, manage and maintain a Project Management Plan (PMP). The PMP shall be a deliverable-driven plan delineating the work effort by establishing milestones that shall be completed upon initiation of prior to submittal of final deliverables under each task order.

The integrated project plan PMP will include all deliverables needed to complete the project, including NRC actions to support the contract, and will include dependencies between all actions, events and milestones.

RFP NRC-41-10-013 Questions and Responses

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL QUESTIONS

LEVEL OF EFFORT

Question: Section L-9 2025.216-70 LEVEL OF EFFORT indicates that 42,545 hours are estimated for the Base Period. Please indicate how many hours an offeror should propose for each of the three 12 months in the Base Period.

Question: Section L-9 2025.216-70 LEVEL OF EFFORT indicates that during the Base Period, an estimated 1,024 hours are anticipated for Hearing Support. Please indicate how many hours an offeror should propose for each of the three 12 months in the Base Period for Hearing Support.

NRC Response:

Over the base period, NRC anticipates the need to develop three Environmental Assessments (EA), three Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), a review of other agency’s Environmental document, and provide technical assistance for safety evaluations.

Based on receipt of application, the number of EAs, EISs and other related reviews may change from year to year, therefore, the offerors should provide their best estimate of labor hours that is required to successfully complete the above stated reviews over the base period and should utilize what they believe is the right mix of labor category and staff’s experience.

Furthermore, give the uncertainty of the number of hearing support requirement over the base period, the offeror may equally divide the number hours over the three year period.

Question: Section L-9 2025.216-70 LEVEL OF EFFORT indicates that during the Base Period, an estimated 1,024 hours are anticipated for Hearing Support. Are these hours in addition to the hours stated for the Base Period (42,545)?

Question: Section L.9 indicates that the Base Period has an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 42,545 hours, and that Hearing Support during the base period is estimated to be 1,024 hours. Is the Hearing Support LOE a subset of the Base Period estimated LOE?

NRC Response: Yes, the anticipated hearing support hours are in addition to the hours stated for the Base Period (42,545).

Question: We are unsure what information you want in the cost table. In Section L.9, the RFP estimates the total number of labor hours. However, it does not break down these hours by labor category. To ensure that you are comparing “apples to apples,” we suggest you give a breakdown and minimum qualifications of each labor category.

Question: How will NRC evaluate cost proposals on an even basis since the RFP does not provide a distribution of hours across disciplines or levels of staff defined by years of experience and education?

Question: How does the NRC expect the 42,545 Estimated Hours (Page L-4) to be distributed over the various components of the Scope of Work?

NRC Response:

Over the base period, NRC anticipates developing three Environmental Assessments (EA), three Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), a review of other agency’s Environmental document, and providing technical assistance for safety evaluations. The scope of working is identified in Attachment 1 of the RFP.

The Offeror is expected to have the necessary experience in preparing the types of documents identified in Attachment 1. Based on that experience, the offeror should propose the labor categories/disciplines/level of experience it deems necessary for the completion of the tasks.

Please note that the number of EAs, EISs and other related reviews specified above are subject to change over the base period based on actual receipt of applications.

Question: Does NRC’s Level of Effort include administrative support of the program?

NRC Response: Yes

Question: L.13 (b)(2)(iv) references clerical hours yet section L.9 of the solicitation does not contain NRC’s clerical estimate of hours. Are offerors to propose their own clerical hours anticipated for this effort or will NRC provide a level of clerical hours?

Question: L.13 (b)(2)(iv) is missing the total number of professional and clerical staff-years.

Question: Did the NRC intend to specify the level of effort of professional and clerical staff-years?

NRC Response: No, the offerors should specify their own hours anticipated to be needed for this effort, based on their past experiences.

Question: Attachment 1 Section 4.0 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS lists disciplines that NRC considers essential for this effort. Are offerors allowed to propose additional disciplines not listed under this section?

NRC Response: Yes. A justification for inclusion of the additional discipline should be included with the technical proposal.

Question: Does NRC anticipate one Task Order for “Project Management”? OR is the cost of project management to be built into a component of indirect costs (i.e., overhead or G&A) OR is some of it to be included in any mark-up proposed for subconsultants?

NRC Response: NRC does NOT anticipate issuing a Task Order for “Project Management.” Offerors should propose project management as a direct or indirect cost (as applicable).

Question: Is the Project Management Plan required for management of the entire contract or is one to be developed for each individual task order?

NRC Response: A Project Management Plan is require for each individual Task Order. No Project Management Plan is required at this time.

Question: Will “Q” or “L” clearance be required for all projects and all personnel or just for personnel who have to visit related nuclear facilities?

NRC Response: No, Q or L clearance is generally not required for all personnel, however, Q or L clearance may be needed for personnel who have to visit nuclear facilities.

Question: Will having or not having “Q” or “L” clearance factor into the evaluation and selection process?

NRC Response: No. Having a Q or L clearance is not an evaluation factor; however, whether or not a contractor has clearance may play a factor in the selections of project assigned to the contractor.

Question: Please define what activities are covered for “Materials Licensees”.

NRC Response: examples of activities covered under “Materials Licensees” are medical, academic, industrial facilities. For more comprehensive list, please visit the NRC’s public website under Nuclear Material tab.

Question: Would successful contractor be required to prepare entire EIS (Task Area 1) or just specific sections of EIS.

NRC Response: Yes, The contractor would be expected to prepare the whole EIS, although we recognize the use of subcontractors in that process.

Question: Will contractor be required to independently verify data in applicant’s submittal with local, state and federal agencies and publicly available databases and has this been accounted for in NRC’s estimate of total hours of effort?

NRC Response: Yes, information provided by the applicant will have to be independently validated, to the extent necessary. Yes, NRC did factor in this effort when developing the estimated total hours required for this task.

Question: Will contractor be required to evaluate and run models to verify correct input and output and interpretation of results and if so has this been accounted for in NRC’s estimate of total hours of effort?

NRC Response: Yes, as necessary, the contractor will be required to verify modeling input, perform confirmatory modeling runs, and assess modeling output. This effort has been accounted for in NRC’s estimate.

Question: Will validation materials be available with applicant’s submittals?

NRC Response: The NRC will provide information provided by the applicant, any applicable guidance and other pertinent information for the review at hand. If not in the initial application, validation materials can be requested, as appropriate, during the review.

Question: Will NUREG-0586 be the basis of assessment for decommissioning of nuclear facilities?

NRC Response:

NRC Response: Yes, NUREG-0586, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities” can be used to guide the site specific analysis that the contractor will have to develop. Additionally, contractors will make use of (1) NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” and NUREG-1748 “ Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs” as guidance for the environmental reviews (see Attachment 1, Section 7.0 of the RFP).

Question: Please describe the purpose and skills needed for the staff person with the following title: “Nuclear Fuel Facility, Spent Fuel Facility, Nuclear Facility Decommissioning, and/or Uranium Mining and Milling”.

NRC Response: Contractors may be asked to prepare environmental review documents on actions that would span the nuclear fuel cycle. Having staff with a thorough understanding and working knowledge of the various types of facilities in the fuel cycle is critical in developing a technically accurate environmental review document.

Question: To what extent will the contractor be asked to provide technical assistance for independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI's). This is mentioned in the RFP introduction but not in the body of the proposal.

NRC Response: The contractor may be asked to provide technical assistance in the event the NRC receives licensing action for an ISFSI. The types of documents the contractor would prepare are similar to those described under Task Areas 1, 3, and 4 of Attachment 1.

Question: Please clarify the role of the "Performance Assessment Analyst."(PAA) NRC Response: NRC envisions PAA can be used to develop long-term modeling to assess impacts.

Question: Air Quality was listed as one of the technical discipline areas in the pre-solicitation, but is not included in the RFP. Is Air Quality/Meteorology no longer considered an area of need for this project?

NRC response: NRC regrets the oversight. Air Quality/Meteorology assessment is still required since it is one of the resources areas that will be evaluated as part of the environmental review.

AVAILABILITY OF PERSONNEL

Question: In Section L.5.b, the RFP request documented proof of the proposed personnel’s availability. What type of proof is required (i.e., a commitment letter)?

Question: Section L, (c), (5), b states “The offeror must provide documented proof of the proposed personnel’s availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract.” Would a signed letter of commitment for all staff be considered adequate documented proof of staff availability?

Question: Regarding the requirement that “The offeror must provide documented proof of the proposed personnel’s availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract,” what documentation does the NRC contemplate? Does each individual need to submit a letter of commitment? OR is a statement of availability, signed at the bottom of each resume, sufficient documentation? OR is there another form of documentation required by the NRC?

Question: Page L-7, item 5(b) states that "the offeror must provide documented proof of the proposal personnel's availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract." Please clarify what constitutes "documented proof."

NRC Response: Either a signed letter of commitment or a signed statement of availability is acceptable.

Question: Our team is struggling with how to price this effort for evaluation given we cannot use all disciplines/staff we would like to propose for one representative task. If we submit personnel that are not assigned hours in the evaluation cost summary, will those individuals still be considered for evaluation or are we limited to those we assign hours too?

NRC Response: You may proposed disciplines/staff not identified in the Statement of Work, as you see fit. However, personnel that are not assigned hours and for which proof of availability is not provided will not be considered.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Question: Section L.13.(c).(5).(a) states “Provide past performance references for itself and each major subcontractor. Major subcontractors are defined as those performing at least 20% of the work. Provide up to 4 recent references (no later than 3 years) for similar projects in size and scope to the work described in the Statement of Work.” In reference to providing 4 recent references, does that mean 4 references total per Subfactor described in Section M.2.(l).(1), or 4 references for each major subcontractor and the prime contractor per Subfactor described in Section M.2.(l).(1)?

NRC Response: Please provide four references for the prime contractor and four references for each major subcontractor proposed.

Question: Section L.13.(c).(5).(b) states “offerors must provide current resumes for all personnel that describe the function, responsibilities, and requirements for the position.” In reference to describing requirements, will the description of the person’s education and training, background and qualifications, and technical and management experience that the offeror believes is required to fulfill the position function and responsibilities provide sufficient information to fulfill this personnel resume requirement?

NRC Response: Yes Question: How will the work be allocated among the selected large and small business contractor(s) versus the existing contract with NRC’s FFRDC, Southwest Research Institute?

NRC Response: NRC envisions division of work between selected contractor and Southwest Research Institute will take into consideration the availability of resources and experiences each contractor possesses.

Question: What are the primary differences in scope between the Full & Open procurement being competed through this solicitation and that of the FFRDC contract awarded to Southwest Research Institute in January 2010 for environmental work related to uranium recovery, fuel cycle, decommissioning, and other NRC licensing support activities?

NRC Response: The scope of work between Full and Open procurement and the FFRDC contract is the same, however, the quantity of the work available may differ.

COST PROPOSAL QUESTIONS

Question: Is there an incumbent firm(s) for this Scope of Work?

NRC Response: While there are several contractors that have performed similar environmental work for the NRC, this procurement is considered a new requirement.

Question: Is only one contract contemplated for this NRC solicitation (we know there is another that is a small-business set-aside)?

NRC Response: Yes, only one award contemplated under this solicitation.

Question: Will the Cost Elements specified in the Section-L table (on Page L-6) be fixed after the award of the contract? That is, will any cost negotiation or adjustment happen as part of the task-ordering process?

NRC Response: This is a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type contract. The basic award will have a maximum ordering limitation which represents the not-to-exceed ceiling for the contract. CPFF type task orders will be issued which will have a not-to-exceed ceiling and a fixed fee.

Question: What about any subcontracts or subconsultants that may need to be added later, depending on the NRC’s requirements? How would these be reflected in the table cited above if the cost elements are fixed?

NRC Response: See previous response above.

Question: If small businesses are included in a responsive proposal, but those firms have never been audited by an agency such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the NRC and are unable to fully break down their hourly rates into the specific elements shown (e.g., fringe benefits, overhead, G&A), how should this information be portrayed? (It is very common for small firms, especially “very small” and “micro firms” to not have this information broken down.) Is it acceptable to simply use the companies’ standard rates for the different personnel to be utilized? (We assume that each small business can demonstrate that its hourly fees are standard for the company as shown on actual invoices.)

NRC Response: Please provide a detailed breakdown and documentation to support how the small businesses derived their proposed costs. Demonstrating that hourly fees are standard for the company via actual invoices is acceptable.

Question: Should the overhead and G&A rates for each small firm be composited and weighted over all such subconsultant firms OR should the respective rates be individually specified? The design of the table seems to anticipate the former.

NRC Response: The prime contractor and each subcontractor should submit a separate cost breakdown. The prime contractor and each subcontractor should apply their organization’s indirect cost rates in accordance with DCAA approval of rates. If the prime or subcontractor does not have DCAA audited rates, they should provide sufficient detail supporting how they came up with the proposed rates.

Question: A related question is whether the labor elements should be averaged over a class or category of workers for an entire company or team? For example, averaged over all “Associate-level Hydrogeologists” at an individual company or an individual confederated team? OR does each Associate Hydrogeologist need to be named and the associated labor costs be specified and documented (for those firms whose participation will equal more than 20%)?

NRC Response: Both ways are acceptable. However, your method needs to be explained and payroll documentation must be provided for all individuals indentified; if you average the labor element then you must provide payroll verification for all individuals and identify how you derived the proposed rate.

Question: Regarding the costs of Years 1 and 2 in the Section-L table, what rate of inflation should be assumed for Year 2?

NRC Response: The NRC has not set a specific rate of inflation. This is negotiable.

Question: From which program, office, or section of the NRC will the NRC’s Project Officer be appointed?

NRC Response: The Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME).

Question: Section L.9 specifies three periods of performance: Base Period (plus hearing support), Option year 1 and Option year 2. The table in Section L.13(b)(2)(ix) lists only Year 1 and Year 2. Please clarify the periods for which separate cost information is to be provided.

NRC Response: A base year of three years and two 1-year options. This Amendment No. 1 revises the table.

Question: May we provide professional category rates for staff, rather than rates by individual? If individual rates are required, do we need to provide pay stubs for each individual proposed if we have been audited by DCAA?

NRC Response: Yes. Please provide verification from DCAA regarding proposed rates, as well as DCAA point of contact information.

TRAVEL

Question: Please provide additional guidance for developing travel costs for proposal purposes. Section 6.0 indicates that travel requirements will be specified in individual task orders.

Question: SOW section 6.0: “For planning purposes, the Contractor shall anticipate two meetings at NRC headquarters for each task”

P L-5, L.13 (2) ix: “The offeror should not adjust the amounts listed in travel”. Did NRC intend to provide the estimated travel amount? It was not listed in the RFP.

P L-5, L.13 (2) ix #5: “Travel costs should be broken down (mileage, airfare, per diem, # of individuals traveling, number of flights, hotel, etc.)” Please clarify requirements for pricing travel. Given most of the tasks will take place in several geographic locations throughout the US, should travel to these sites be priced in addition to the 2 meetings at NRC headquarters?

Question: Section L.13 (b)(2)(ix) indicates that Travel costs should be broken down (mileage, airfare, per diem, # of individuals traveling, number of nights, hotel, etc. This seems to contradict the statement in the beginning of Section L.13 (b)(2)(ix) that “the offeror should not adjust the amount listed in travel”.

Question: Section L.13(b)(2)(ix) presents a table for the cost proposal format, with no values for travel included. The text in this section indicates that "the Offeror should not adjust the amount listed in travel." Does this mean that we should not propose travel costs?

Question: Section L.13 (b)(2)(ix) instructs offerors not to adjust the amount listed in travel. There is no travel amounts listed in the table in this section. Please clarify what travel amounts offerors should propose.

NRC Response: NRC is hereby specifying the following Not-to-Exceed amounts for travel in the base contract:

No breakdown of travel is required at this time. Breakdown of travel will be required at the time of task order proposal submission.

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Question: PL-5, L.13 (2) viii: Is a detailed subcontractor plan required with the Cost Proposal submission?

NRC response: Yes.

Question: Page L-5 of the RFP states "However, if an offeror proposes subcontracts and they are determined to be in the competitive range they must be prepared to submit a detailed subcontracting plan." Please clarify "they" - shall the prime submit the subcontracting plan, or the subcontractor?

NRC Response: The prime contract shall submit a subcontracting plan.

Question: Please clarify if a subcontracting plan is required with our proposal.

NRC Response: Yes.

SUBCONTRACTS

Question: PL-5, L.13 (2) ix: “A table similar to the above should be provided for each cost-reimbursable subcontract. Payroll verification, verification of indirect rates and breakdowns should be provided.”Is this level of detail required for minor small Subcontractors, e.g. < 10% of the effort??

NRC response: A breakdown of cost is required for ALL subcontracts. The level of detail described above is required for any subcontract over $100,000.

Question: We are under the perception that each key subcontractor will require a cost table as found on Page L-6.

NRC Response: Correct.

Question: L.13 (2)(viii) The subcontracting plan requirements of P.L. 95-507 are applicable to this contract. The government does envision subcontracts as a requirement for this procurement. However, if an offeror proposes subcontracts and they are determined to be in the competitive range they must be prepared to submit a detailed subcontracting plan.

The tone of the second and third sentences suggests a contradiction. Was the second sentence perhaps intended to say “the government does not envision subcontracts as a requirement for this procurement”?

NRC Response: No. The government envisions subcontracts as a requirement for this procurement. If an offeror proposes subcontracts, they must submit a subcontracting plan.

PAYROLL VERIFICATION

Question: Please provide clarification on the requirement to submit payroll verification in the form of paycheck stubs. How many pay periods do you require? Is submitting the latest paycheck stub acceptable?

NRC Response: The most recent paycheck stub is sufficient.

Question: L.13 (2)(ix) 1. Labor, i.e., Salary and wages – Direct salaries and wages should be proposed in accordance with offeror’s personnel policies. Please provide payroll verification in the form of paycheck stubs. Are payroll stub required for all individuals for whom resumes are submitted?

NRC Response: Payroll verification is required for all proposed individuals (that have been identified).

OTHER

Question: The RFP requests a breakdown of ODCs. Because this is an open-end IDIQ contract and we have limited knowledge on the actual task orders, we request that you provide a dollar value for ODCs. You could have your evaluation for reasonableness be based on G&A and fee.

Question: L.13 (b)(2)(ix)(5) states “The narrative should provide a breakdown and support for all other direct costs.” To enable the NRC to evaluate cost proposals on an even basis, will NRC provide an amount for other direct costs for all offerors to propose?

NRC Response: The NRC does not anticipate significant other direct costs in performing of this work. These costs are negotiable.

Question: Section L.13 (b)(1) Part 1 – Solicitation Package/Offer. Does Part 1 only include the Standard Form 33? If not, please indicate what other information an offeror should include in this section.

NRC Response: A signed Standard Form 33 is sufficient.

Question: (2)(ix) For evaluation purposes, offerors shall use the format below. Describe how the costsrelate to the components listed in Section C. The offeror should not adjust the amount listed in travel.

Please clarify a) the contract period defined in L.11 is three years with two one year options, yet the RFP table (below) includes only two years, b) there are no “components” identified in Section C, and c) did the NRC intend to list values for travel in this table included in the RFP?

NRC Response: The contract period is a three year base with two options years. Offerors shall describe how costs relate to components identified in Section C, the Statement of Work. NRC has identified travel amounts via this Amendment No. 1 (see response to travel questions above).

Question: Section L.13 (b)(2)(ix) instructs offerors to use the cost format listed in this section. This format does not contain a column for proposed hours in order to address the requirement under paragraph (k) on Page M.2. Is NRC not looking for this level of detail?

Question: (k) A separate cost analysis is performed on each cost proposal. To provide a common base for evaluation of cost proposals, the level of effort data must be expressed in staff hours. The format for the cost proposal table identified in L.13 (above) does not include hours.

NRC Response: Section L.13(b)(2)(ix) is hereby modified to revise the requested format to include requested level of detail. See below.

Direct Labor

Labor Category

Labor Category

Total Direct Labor

Fringe Benefits

Consultants

Subcontracts

Travel and Per Diem

Other Direct Costs

Overhead

G&A (if any)

Total Estimated Cost

Question: Section L.13 (b)(2)(ix) indicates the items that an offeor should discuss in their budget narrative. Under Paragraph 4 – Subcontracts, the instructions state that “A table similar to the above should be provided for each cost-reimbursement subcontract.” If a subcontractor is not being proposed on a cost-reimbursement basis, but on a T&M basis, what information should be included?

NRC Response: A breakdown of the hourly rate (which will include the components above), as well as a breakdown of all materials. The proposal shall clearly demonstrate how the loaded hourly rate was derived.

Question: Please confirm 15 hard copies of Cost and Technical Volumes are required for submittal.

NRC Response: Confirmed.

Question: List of Attachments (Section J) #2 Billing Instructions and #3 Contractor Spending Plan – Attachments not provided.

NRC Response: Attachments #2 and #3 are hereby attached to this Amendment No. 1.

CSP

Question: L.13(b)(2)(vi) states “When the offerors estimated cost for the proposed work exceeds $100,000 and the duration of the contract period exceeds six months, the offeror shall submit a Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) as part of it’s cost proposal.” Is such a CSP required at this time or only as part of individual task order proposals, as indicated by G.4(c).

Question: A Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) specifies the project completion percentage in each month throughout the project performance period. P. L-5, L.13 (2) v. and vi.: Given the estimated cost proposed is used “for evaluation purposes only” and this is an Indefinite Quantity Task Order contract, without knowing the timing each Task Orders will be issued, is it necessary to submit a CSP with this proposal submission? If so, can the Government provide guidance on how to anticipate tasking for development of a CSP?

Question: P. L-5, L.13 (2) vi: “Guidance for completing the CSP is attached”; no attachment.

Question: On Page L-5, it is stated that “Guidance for completing the CSP is attached.” We do not see that Guidance?

NRC Response: Attachment #3 is hereby attached to this Amendment No. 1. A CSP is only required for task order proposals over $100,000. Therefore, no CSP is required with your submission.