Nuclear Safety Consultant - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Independent Nuclear Consulting Services – Single Award Task Order Contract Evaluation Criteria.

1. Source Selection and Acquisition Strategy

This Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract is to be awarded to the most highly qualified offeror based on the selection criteria. The Government will use a non-price/price tradeoff process for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and provides the best value to the Government.

Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Criteria

Relative Order of Importance

Evaluation Basis Factor

1 Go/No Go Factor 1: Minimum Qualifications 2 Adjectival Factor 2: Corporate Capability 3 Adjectival Factor 3: Technical Approach 4 Adjectival Factor 4: Previous Experience 5 Adjectival Factor 5: Past Performance

NIST will evaluate the offerors proposals to determine their capability of performing the task. NIST will evaluate Factor 1 on a ‘Go/No Go” basis. Offerors that do not meet the Minimum Qualifications will not receive further evaluation. Factors 2-4 will be evaluated based on the adjectival ratings listed in Table 1 at the end of this document. Factor 5 will be evaluated based on the adjectival ratings listed in Table 2 at the end of this document. Offerors will be ranked based on their ratings.

An emphasis will be placed on the relative importance of each factor as listed above.

All non-price factors, when combined, are considered of greater importance than price. In the event that the evaluation of non-price factors in multiple proposals are technically equivalent, price will become the determining factor.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance by contacting appropriate references, including NIST references; if applicable. The Government may also consider other information available. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

2. Technical Evaluation

Offerors will be evaluated utilizing the following evaluation criteria. To be considered for award, offerors must be technically acceptable in all evaluated areas.

Factor 1: Minimum Qualifications

1.1. The contractor personnel shall have documented combination of education, training, and experience equivalent to those described in Section 03.02.c.1, c.2, and c.3 of NRC Inspection

Procedure 95003, “Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red Input,” dated June 7, 2022

1.2. Because of the aggressive pace anticipated in the near-term following contract award, offerors must demonstrate their ability to execute multiple task orders (up to 7) of similar scope to Task 01 simultaneously with concurrent periods of performance and approximate deadlines.

Factor 2: Corporate Capability

2. Corporate Capability – offerors will be evaluated on their ability to meet the requirements and execute the statement of work in the initial task order and anticipated task orders in the six program areas. Further, because of the aggressive pace anticipated in the near-term following contract award, offerors must demonstrate their ability to execute multiple task orders of similar scope to the initial task order (up to 7 – an assessment in each of the six areas: Nuclear Safety Culture;

Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R); Event Root Cause; Training; Procedures; and Design and Function of the Safety Assessment Committee (SAC) and the Safety Evaluation Committee in addition to providing training for Nuclear Safety Culture) simultaneously with concurrent periods of performance and approximate deadlines. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to meet the requirements in the SOW for the initial task order and similar, concurrent task orders in the subject areas listed below and to provide critical, independent assessments of the actions, performance, and nuclear safety climate at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR).

2.1. Technical Staff – offerors will be evaluated on the size and subject matter expertise of personnel resources available for deployment on multiple, concurrent task orders. Preference will be given to offerors drawing from a pool of current employees; however, consideration will be given to resources available to the offeror through consultant agreements or subcontracts if evidence of availability and a history of previous engagements can be demonstrated. Staffing levels, education, participation in professional societies and experience of personnel resources will be evaluated for the suitability to provide independent third-party assessments, reports, recommendations for program improvements, corrective actions and training in the following areas: Nuclear Safety Culture; Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R); Event Root Cause;

Training; Procedures; and Design and Function of the Safety Assessment Committee (SAC) and the Safety Evaluation Committee.

2.2. Support Staff – offerors will be evaluated on the size and composition of the staff available to carry out any administrative and clerical duties necessary to execute task orders. Examples of these duties may include contract administration, travel arrangement, document preparation, and data analysis, weekly status update meetings, scheduling, and project management. The proportion of support staff to technical staff proposed for this contract will be evaluated for adequacy.

2.3. Facilities/Infrastructure – offerors will be evaluated on the workspace, systems and tools available to carry out task orders under this contract. This may include IT systems/structures/networks, software packages (common and industry/task specific), and any other corporate assets enhancing the ability to carry out task orders under this contract.

Factor 3: Technical Approach

3. Technical Approach – offerors will be evaluated on the technical approach they propose for executing the initial task order as well as a broader strategy for executing multiple (up to 7) concurrent task orders.

3.1. The evaluation will examine the offeror’s detailed technical approach for the initial task order and consider whether the offeror demonstrates a complete understanding of the task requirements; the feasibility of the approach to satisfy all task requirements; appropriate type, level and deployment duration of personnel resources assigned; alignment of resources and assets assigned with available corporate capabilities; and a resource-loaded project schedule consistent with milestone and delivery deadlines. Offerors will be evaluated on their commitment to providing unbiased, critical analyses and advice without consideration of the customer/contractor relationship.

3.2. The evaluation will examine a less-detailed approach proposed by the offeror for executing up to 7 similar (in scope and complexity), concurrent task orders to assess the feasibility of meeting the technical and schedule requirements within the constraints of the offeror’s resource capacity.

Factor 4: Previous Experience

4. Previous Experience – offerors will be evaluated based on their previous experience performing tasks or projects similar to the initial task order. Similarity will be assessed based on the nature of the task, technical area, complexity of the task, resource requirements and project deliverables. In addition to comparison to the initial task, evaluations will also examine evidence of previous experience in each of the target areas: Nuclear Safety Culture; Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R); Event Root Cause; Training; Procedures; and Design and Function of the Safety Assessment Committee (SAC) and the Safety Evaluation Committee (SEC).

Factor 5: Past Performance

5. Past Performance – offerors will be evaluated on the responses and feedback received to a government-requested survey sent to previous customers for whom work similar to the initial task order was performed. (Offerors will supply Past Performance references). Scoring will be made on the basis of the level of similarity and complexity of the work performed to the initial task order and survey respondents’ satisfaction level of the offeror’s responsiveness/communication, quality of products/deliverables, timeliness of delivery and overall satisfaction with the offeror’s performance.

Respondents will choose the appropriate satisfaction level from the choices in the following table:

Factor 6: Task Order 01 Price Quote

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's price proposal. The Offeror must provide a firm, fixed, itemized price proposal to perform Task Order 01 – Nuclear Safety Culture Assessment.

Price will be evaluated on proposals that pass the technical capability factors within the solicitation.

The price proposal for the task order will be evaluated to determine price fairness and reasonableness.

Adjectival Ratings:

When applicable, the Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival ratings:

Table 1 - Adjectival Ratings for Evaluation Factors 2-4

Adjective Description Exceptional Greatly exceeds minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Exceeds the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist

Acceptable Meets the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

Table 2 - Adjectival Ratings for Factor 5

U M S VG E N

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional Neutral

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

No performance information available will be given a neutral rating.