Pele_RFS_Q+As.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request for Solutions Pele
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
- Issued by
-
DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
Pele Request for Solution Q&A
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Answers
| # | Section/Pages | Background | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Technical Volume | Is a compliance matrix, acronym list, and a list of figures required for submission? Does the 50 page limitation include these additional items? | Cover Page, Compliance matrix, acronym list, and table of contents do NOT fall within 50 page limit. List of figures and diagrams will be counted in the 50 page limit. |
| 2 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Technical Volume | What font style is required? In addition, what font size is permissible for graphics and tables? We recommend using 8 point font for tables and graphics consistent with similar DoD/DoE proposals. | No font style is required, so long as it is readable. Font no smaller than eight point font may be used for tables and graphics. See the amended RFS for a revision addressing this question. |
| 3 | Section II.A.1.a, p. 6 | Phase IA and Phase IB | Both phases require “a comprehensive build ready design product defined by DOE STD 1189.” This seems appropriate for a Phase IB conclusion, but premature to have the same maturity for the Phase IA conclusion. We recommend that Phase IA be revised to: “completion of preliminary design includes technology readiness of major Structures, Systems, and Components (SSC) and no significant uncertainties such that the detailed design can proceed.” | The Government believes the RFS language is clear. Phase IA deliverable should be a consolidated preliminary design concept that includes design decisions on reactor core layout and auxiliary systems. Technology readiness and associated risks of major Structures, Systems and Components (SSC) should be documented as well. This preliminary design report should be in keeping with DOE-STD-1189 guidance toward end product of a final design product. See Section I.E.1.a |
| 4 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Proposals will be screened to ensure that they meet the minimum technical requirements but no provision is made in the Section H proposal instructions to provide this data. To support proper evaluation, we recommend that this data be provided as a summary table in the technical volume with the proof and justification that the offeror's concept design meets these requirements prior to entering Phase IA. An offeror's proposal that does not provide adequate proof that the pre-Phase IA concept design meets the requirements should not be further evaluated by the Government. | Proposals must demonstrate adequate proof that the minimum technical requirements have been met. Whether this is as a summary table or otherwise is up to the proposer. A summary table of minimum requirements containing proof and justification that the concept design meets these minimum requirements would be acceptable. |
| 5 | Section III.B.2, p. 22 | Evaluation Factors - Factor 1 and Factor 2 | The TRL and MRL evaluation criteria define what the readiness levels mean but provide no explanation on how proposals will be evaluated under these definitions. We recommend that the Government provide its method for evaluation and scoring approach--e.g., are proposals evaluated purely on the readiness achieved prior to start of Phase IA; risk assessment of Phase IA/IB approach; cumulative strengths/weaknesses; or some other method? | Source Selection will not follow a strict scoring approach. The Government will weigh TRL and MRL levels with regulatory risk, management approach, and cost in order to select the most advantageous solutions. |
| 6 | Section III.B.2, p. 22 | Evaluation Factors - Factor 3 - Management Approach | Page 6 states that “Phase IB work will require Partner Teams to shift specified aspects of their design work to a classified level. This requires Phase IB Partner Teams to satisfy security plan guidance and facility clearance access in accordance with Section IIB.” We recommend that Factor 3 also require evidence of a current, existing accredited facility (at the appropriate clearance level) to ensure proper hosting of Phase IB activities. Without such evidence of a current, accredited facility, the risk to Phase IB significantly increases due to the lengthy accreditation process. | As stated in Section II.B.2, "Partner Teams explained a valid plan to meet the appropriate requirement of SECRET clearance." If your facility is currently accredited at the SECRET level or higher then please provide the proper information justifying that you meet the requirements for Phase IB. Additionally, this means that you have to identify a valid plan to have personnel cleared at the SECRET level for Phase IB. |
| 7 | Section III.B.2, p. 22 | Evaluation Factors | Evaluation Factor 1 (TRL) and Evaluation Factor 2 (MRL) are written as if they are to be evaluated the same way. TRL is higher in weight but should be considered differently given that this program is proposed based on concepts leading to Phase IB. Technical maturity must lead Manufacturing maturity through proposal submission and Phase IA. The Government notes this in Factor 2, on Page 22: “It is quite common for manufacturing readiness to be paced by technology readiness or design stability. Manufacturing processes will not be able to mature until the product technology and product design are stable.” |
Given the acknowledgement that Manufacturing trails Technical maturity, we suggest modifying the evaluation criteria as follows:
1. For Evaluation Factor 1 (TRL): The TRL evaluation is based on the quality, maturity, and risk of the Technical Concept Design (as evidenced in the offeror's proposal) and the offeror's approach and ability to achieve TRL 5 by end of Phase IA and TRL 7 at Phase IB completion.
2. For Evaluation Factor 2 (MRL): The MRL evaluation is based on the offeror's approach and risk mitigation strategy to reach MRL 3 by completion of Phase IA and MRL 5 at Phase IB completion.
| This properly aligns with the Government's Phase II objective to build a prototype capability and prepare the potential of full-rate manufacturing at the Phase II conclusion. It also accounts for the leader/follower relationship of TRL/MRL and properly calibrates their maturity and risk. | TRL and MRL will be scored for the 14 Technical Evaluation Categories. It is expected that some proposers will already have achieved high TRL levels for some of those sub-systems, while other sub-systems will be lower. There is no specific requirement that all sub-systems be at a certain TRL level at the end of Phase IA, rather, proposers will be expected to demonstrate how they intend to address and reduce risk on low-TRL subsystems. | ||||
| 8 | Section II.H., p. 13 | Proposal Instructions | Is the proposal due on June 10, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT (Page 2), or June 14, 2019 at 11:59 pm EDT (Page 13)? | Proposals are due June 10, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this question. | |
| 9 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security - Secrecy Order for Patent Application Filing | Regarding the Government's intention not to restrict unnecessarily the ability of performers to develop any technology for commercial purposes, Page 2 of the Q&A also mentions security requirements related to national security. Given the RFS clarification that Phase IA is unclassified and Phase IB is classified, please confirm whether a secrecy order per 37 C.F.R 5.2(a) would apply only for the Phase IB work, and thus a contractor may file patent applications for Phase IA work without secrecy order restrictions? | The Government reserves the right to request a secrecy order where publication or disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent would be detrimental to national security, regardless of the phase of acquisition. The Government may request secrecy orders for any patent applications and related documents that are national security classified and contain authorized national security markings. The Government's intent is to limit secrecy order requests to only those that are necessary so as to not unecessarily restrict commercial development by performers. Any resultant OTA agreements will address this consideration. | |
| 10 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security - Use of Form I-9 for U.S. Citizenship Verification | Pursuant to the Immigration Control and Reform Act, under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, an employer may use the Form I-9 only for verification of eligibility for employment in the United States. It is considered “document abuse” to require a new hire to supply specific identification, such as a passport, if the individual has offered other records, such as a social security card and driver's license, that establish eligibility to work. Therefore, can the Government provide another mechanism, or certification in lieu of requiring the actual Form I-9 document, to verify U.S. citizenship for the purposes of this procurement? | Performers must ensure that all Program personnel are eligible to be granted security clearances or currently have security clearances. Non-U.S. citizens do not qualify for security clearances. Performers must verify the identity of all Program personnel using the Form I-9, as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Performers must maintain a valid and completed Form I-9 on file for all Program personnel. | |
| 11 | Section II.H.2.c, p. 17 | Cost/Price Volume - Materials | The RFS states on Page 17 that the Material BOE should include bills of material for commercial and non-commercial items. Please confirm that facility costs such as equipment, hardware, software, etc. are eligible costs for performance of the Government's Phase IA and Phase IB requirements. | Equipment and facilities costs associated with design work only is permitted in Phase IA and IB, so long as purchased equipment will not be intended for use in the actual Phase II build. | |
| 12 | Section III.C.5, p. 25 | Power Conversion System | On Page 25, the last sentence of Section 5, Power Conversion System, states: “Provisions for high quality heat energy supply in addition to the required electrical output will be considered.” Is this a reference to the use of process heat for hydrogen production or area heating or another use of reactor waste heat? | The ability of any proposed design to produce high quality heat (in addition to meeting required electrical output) for other applications will be allowed. The "other applications" are not specified nor are they necessarily within scope of this effort. | |
| 13 | Section III.C.6, p. 25 | System Safety | In Section 6, System Safety, the last sentence on Page 25 states that a “proposed plan to test for weapons attacks will need to be provided in the proposal.” Please confirm that the offeror is only required to supply a Plan, and that tests with explosives will be performed under a separate contract or by the Government. | Yes, offeror is only required to supply a testing plan for Source Selection. If the offerer wishes to include destructive testing as part of Phase IA, Phase IB, or Phase II, the cost and schedule for that should be indicated in the proposal. | |
| 14 | Section I.E.1.c, p. 7 | Financial Information | Can the government be more specific on how often and what is expected to be included in the "Financial Information" deliverable? | Financial updates and delieverable details will be dependent on contract type, proposed solution, and other considerations. The Government and proposer will determine what will be required for "Financial Information" deliverables during negotiations. | |
| 15 | Section I.E.1.a, p. 6 | Program Plan | RFS states, "The submission of the Preliminary Design (PDR) Package should be a comprehensive build-ready design product as defined by DOE-STD-1189 due by month 9.DOE-STD-1189 provides products including hazards and Accident Analysis, TRL assesment and specific products such as SDS, NEPA, QAP, and COR products; it also provides the scope of the independent review." Is this the full expectation of the final delieverd PDR documents, or are other design artifacts such as the functional and physical arcitecture also to be provided? | The Government is the lead for the NEPA, SDS, PDS, and FDA, and the Partner Teams will need to provide input to those processes. All other PDR documents are the responsibility of the Partner teams. | |
| 16 | Throughout | Terminology | RFS states Terminology of "reactor", "reactor and system", "system", and "micro-reactor" used throughout RFS. Can you clarify RFS terminology to distinguish requirements related to the reactor (MNR) vs the power plant (MNPP) vs the complete system? Or are these synonymous? | The complete system must meet the technical requirements set in the amended RFS. The term "micro-reactor" should be seen as synonymous for the full system the performer must produce a design for. | |
| 17 | Section I.E, p. 5 | Program Plan | In regards to the Fig.1 Schedule Graphic, given that the major deliverable associated with Phase IA is the Preliminary Design Report, due at 9 months, what does the Government expect to be performed during the two-month period after PDR but before start of Final Design? Are there any deliverables the Government can identify to help scope the required effort? | Phase IA delieverable is a preliminary design report and does not denote end of the design effort. While the deliverable is due at month 9, the period of performance is for 12 months. The expectation is for performers to continue developing the final design in months 10 through 12. This structure is designed to ensure there are no interruptions in work between Phase IA and Phase IB. Other deliverables should be the same for non-major deliverables under the agreement. | |
| 18 | Section I.E.1, p. 6 | Phase IA | RFS states for Phase IA "comprehensive build-ready design product as defined by DOE-STD-1189." Given that the completion of Preliminary Design does not usually result in "build ready" products (this would be appropriate for the completion of Final Design), we suggest this statement be rephrased to: "….comprehensive, high TRL/MRL product that provides the basis for final design as defined by DOE-STD-1189" | Yes, Phase IA will provide a preliminary design and Phase IB a final design product. | |
| 19 | Section I.D, p. 5 | Technical Objectives | In regards to the term "semiautonomous, is the capability for remote monitoring, or operation, part of semi-autonomous operation? | Yes. | |
| 20 | Section I.E., p. 5 | Program Plan | In regards to the Fig 1. Schedule Graphic, this graphic identifies the Phase IB deliverable due in Month 20 of Phase I; however I.E.1.b Phase IB lists the Phase IB deliverable "due at approximately month 22." Respectfully recommend "due at Month 22." | The Phase IB deliverable will be due at approximately Month 22. See the amended RFS for the correction to Figure 1. Schedule Graphic. | |
| 21 | Section I.E.3, p. 8 | Project Management | The RFS states, "management and technical Subject matter Experts (SMEs), to ensure mission objectives are being addressed." The Government uses the term "mission objectives." Are these the same at "minimum technical requirements"? | "Mission objectives" includes minimum technical requirements but refers to the overall objectives of the prototype project. | |
| 22 | Section I.E.3, p. 8 | Project Management | The RFS states, "other major events for program liaison, visibility, and advocacy, including policy matters." Can the Government provide additional clarity and an estimate as to what, and how often, "major events for program liaison, visibility, …" are to occur? | The level of visibility this program will have in the future is not possible to predict at this time. That said, the Government expects coordinated activities such as public advocacy to be needed to maximize probability of program success. | |
| 23 | Section II.D, p. 12 | Data Rights and Intellectual Property - | The RFS states, "Partner Teams responding to this solicitation shall identify all Data that it plans to furnish to the Government under any negotiated OTA in which the Government will receive less tha Unlimited rights, and assert specific restrictions on that Data. Partner Teams shall follow the format described below for this stated purpose.." Will the Government allow the Offeror to add an addendum at the end of the Technical Volume, outside of page count, to provide a comprehensive response for the required table for data restrictions? | Offerors may include an addendum to the Technical Volume, outside of page count, to provide a comprehensive Data Rights Assertion Table consistent with the terms and format described in the RFS. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this question. | |
| 24 | Section II.H, p. 13 | Proposal Instructions | The RFS states, "Both volumes must be submitted electronically to the Contracting Office POC email address by June 14, 2019 at 11:59PM EDT.." We recommend as part of correcting conflicting RFS data, and due to the differences between the program model presented at Industry Day and the model defined in the RFS, that the proposal delivery date be June 14, 2019. | Proposals are due June 10, 2019 at 4:00 pm EDT. This has been corrected in the amended RFS. | |
| 25 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | The RFS states, "The response shall be single-spaced pages with no less than 1-inch margins and 12-point font.." 12-point font in diagrams prevents the ability to fully depict concept technical solutions as required by the RFS. Will the Government allow smaller than 12-point font for exhibits (tables and figures), which will increase the legibility to depict complex concepts? We believe it is in the Government's best interest to allow smaller than 12-point font in exhibits, with a caution to offerors that using exhibits as a mean to circumvent the 12-point font requirement will cause the Government to remove pages from the end of the Technical Volume to the extent that the font reduction reduced total page count. | Eight point font for tables and graphics is acceptable. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this question. | |
| 26 | Section I.H.2.c, p. 17 | Proposal Instructions, Cost/Price Narrative | The RFS states, "The Cost/Price Narrative shall justify costs to support the Technical Volume. Costs shall be broken down for Phase IA and Phase IB, listing cost totals for labor, materials, other direct charges (ODCs), indirect costs (overhead, fringe, general and administrative, etc.), and any proposed fee for the project. |
| For non-lead Partner Team member proposals, include all proprietary non-lead Partner Team member proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the lead Partner Team member.." FFP contracts obligate the majority of risk to the Prime Offeror, who then flows down requirements to subcontractors, and is wholly responsible for overall delivery of proposed solutions along agreed upon milestones. The level of required RFS cost/price detail is normally required for Cost-Reimbursable contracts cost proposals and not in FFP price proposals. Would the Government consider reducing the financial detail required for Cost/Price narratives when an Offeror choses to propose a FFP contract? | The Government will perform cost realism analysis as well as price reasonableness analysis. To do so, the Government requires similar information as required of the lead Partner Team from non-lead Partner Team members, particularly, as non-lead Partner Team members are expected to perform a significant portion of the work. In addition, the Government may request additional cost information during negotiations. | |||
| 27 | Section I.H.2.c, p. 18 | Proposal Instructions, Cost/Price Spreadsheet | The RFS states, "Fixed-milestone payments: |
• Direct Labor - Individual name, labor category, associated labor hours, and burdened direct labor rates. In the Price Narrative include the justification of the BOE detailed in the Price Narrative;
Expenditure-milestone payments:
• Direct Labor - Individual name, labor category, associated labor hours, and unburdened direct labor rates. In the Price Narrative include the justification of the BOE detailed in the Price Narrative;
| • Indirect: any G&A, fringe, M&S, fee, etc.." Our standard estimating methodology on engingeering programs focuses on first identifying the technical and management requirements and then developing resource estimates (by LCAT) to accomplish them across our integrated team. Standard Cost/Price volumes for both FFP and CPFF contracts do not typically include individual names, and many companies consider the mapping of employee name to labor category to be company proprietary. We respectfully request that this be removed so the Government can evaluate our entire team's staffing complexion by LCAT and hours as described in the Evaluation Criteria section. Resumes for key program and technical personnel can still be provided with the candidate's name as per the insructions. | The Government does not need individual names of all employees as part of the cost/price volume. However, this does not in any way obviate the requirement for individual names for key program and technical personnel in the technical volume. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this question. | ||||
| 28 | Section III.A.3, p. 19 | Basis for Award | The RFS states, "Each National Lab Expert who reviews any proposal shall not be disqualified or otherwise precluded from working on other projects or agreements at his/her employing national laboratory that are similar or related to the subject matter of this.." Please clarify how the Government intends to manage the participation of National Labs that support SCO AND the Partner Teams, and how a conflict of interest for such evaluators will be avoided? | The Government is implementing organizational and personnel conflict of interest (OCI) safeguards to ensure objectivity. National Lab subject matter experts (SME) who review proposals will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement and will be prohibited from disclosing protected information pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 2102. The OCI safeguards being implemented are to avoid any actual or apparent conflicts of interest. National Lab SMEs will not be permitted to participate in proposal review if they are unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government or if the SME's objectivity is or might otherwise be impaired. In addition, SMEs will not be voting members of solution selection, rather, they will only be providing technical expertise to the voting members of the solution selection team which will be composed entirely of Government employees. | |
| 29 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS states, "If battle damaged, the plant design and materials employed in its construction cannot generate and impose excessive training and equipping burdens on forward area first responders or site medical facilities." Does the Government consider the use of beryllium in the reactor design a contributing factor to "excessive training and equipping burdens on…first responders…"? What Does the Government consider to be the Design Basis Event that represents "battle damage" - a break in the reactor pressure vessel, loss of cooling, or the complete destruction of the reactor? | Use of beryllium is allowable in conceptual proposal, and SCO's team will be providing continual feedback to the partner teams to let them know if any aspect of their design becomes a concern. Battle damage should be any of the following conditions brought about by adversarial action: Loss of all electrical, containment vessel compromised integrity, loss of primary cooling | |
| 30 | Section III.C.13, p. 27 | Complete System | The RFS states, "Partner team(s) must demonstrate through modeling and simulation the ability of the microreactor system to minimize fission product release during a battle damage/blast conditions/adversary attacks event. SCO and the Partner team(s) will agree on the pulse | ||
| definition prior to any testing.."For purposes of planning Phases IA and IB, given the cost capped nature of the awarded contracts, will the Government specify the timing of when the pulse data will be provided to the Partner Teams? Will typical projectile geometries, composition, and kinetic enegy parameters be provided to enable analysis of projectile impacts? | An unclassified pulse definition will be provided during Phase IA, the precise nature of which has not yet been determined by the Government. However, any modeling of hypothetical battle damage will likely be classified, and should not be done prior to Phase IB. | ||||
| 31 | Section III.C.2, p. 24 | Core | The RFS states, "All structural materials, should have an applicable ASTM standard and/or ASME code wherever practical, or proposal will provide a short-term development plan to achieve core materials certification." Structural materials qualification to establish ASME code cases can take years, and a development plan started as part of the Pele program will likely not be complete by the end of the period of performance. Is it acceptable to cite on-going tests and demonstate a path to completion of these tests that would support future regulatory acceptance? | Yes. | |
| 32 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS states, "Proposals will be screened to determine whether they meet minimum technical requirements." Can the government describe the screening process they intend to apply to determine acceptance against the minimum technical requirements? | The Government will review each proposed technical solution against each minimum requirement and evaluate whether or not the solution meets that requirement. A technical solution that fails to meet any of the individual minimum requirements will be excluded from further review. | |
| 33 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS references "minimal external power supply allowable." Can Government define what the expected "minimal external power supply" may be in kWe? | This question is in reference to black start capability. Partner Teams should design the power supply into their designs as needed (if needed). The requirement is that it fit within the transportation envelope. | |
| 34 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS states, "Health and Safety - No net increase in risk to public safety." How will SCO assess no net increase in risk? Is it sufficient to demonstrate that radiation exposure to workers or to the public is within legal administrative limits? | Yes, design should have consideration to limiting exposure to legal administrative limits, with the understanding that those limits might be adjusted in later phases. | |
| 35 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS states, "Design Functional Containment…ensures exceedingly low releases." Would SCO consider deleting this requirement, since the use of TRISO fuel delivers the functional containment aspect of the design? | No. Partner Teams will have to demonstrate functional containment in their design package submittals | |
| 36 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | The RFS states, "Health and Safety…no direct radiation exposure during operation, off-normal operations, or upset conditions." We assume that "off normal operations" and "upset conditions" do not include design basis, or beyond design basis events such as battle damage. Please confirm the meaning. | The Government believes the meaning is clear as stated, "No net increase in risk to public safety by direct radiation exposure during power operation, off-normal operations, or upset conditions. Minimize consequences to nearby personnel in case of adversary attack and any contamination from a breach." | |
| 37 | Section III.C.1, p. 24 | Fuel | The RFS references TRISO fuel form (Par, line 1); TRISO fuel particle and compacts (par. 2, line 5); and TRISO compact form (par. 2, line 8). Can the offeror assume that the use of the term "compact" means a generic pressed fuel form factor, as envisioned in the AGR program, which could include different aspect ratios/designs of prismatic compacts as well as spheres? | Yes, in this description, compact and compact form are meant to be geometry non-specific. | |
| 38 | Section III.C.1., p. 24 | Fuel | The RFS states, "the fuel matrix can be determined by the designer." Can the Government confirm that the only acceptable "graphite fuel matrix" formulations are A3-3 and A3-27, which were the two matrix designs employed on the AGR 1-7 experiments? | No. But if a designer determines that a non-graphite (A3-3 or A3-27) is to be specified, the designer will need to provide a plan for achieving a licensable design, including any impacts on cost and schedule. | |
| 39 | Section III.C.6, p. 25 | System Safety | The RFS states, "A proposed plan to test for weapons attacks will need to be provided in the proposal." II.H.1.d states "The Partner Team shall also indicate the proposed experimental tests needed to advance these areas of the proposed microreactor systems," yet this Technical Evaluation Category requirement describes a detailed plan for this particular test that will be developed by the SCO/Partner Team. Will the Government allow the Offeror to respond to the Proposal Instruction by providing a summary for planned weapons attack analysis/testing during Phase IA - instead of the detailed plan as implied? | Proposers should provide as detailed of a plan as possible at this early stage, with the understanding that the testing protocols might need to be changed in later phases of the program. | |
| 40 | Section I.E.1.a, p. 6 | Program Plan | In reference to the intermediate program reviews that are technical in nature, shall it be assumed to be organized and focused around the Technical Evaluation Categories as defined in section III.C? Is there a specific content format to be used at the program reviews? | Yes, they will be largely focused around the Technical Evaluation Categories, but the precise content format will be agreed on between the Partner Teams and SCO after award. | |
| 41 | Section I.E.1.a, p. 6 | Program Plan | It is assumed that the technical and regulatory reviews will occur in Washington D.C. for travel and cost estimate purposes. | Proposers may make this assumption. However, Partner Teams may propose to host one or more reviews at their location rather than Washington D.C. | |
| 42 | Section I.E.1.a, p. 6 | Documentation | The assumption based on Section II.2, page 23, paragraph 1 is the PDSA (Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis) is the phase 1a deliverable along with supporting design documents & testing materials. | Partner Teams will provide input into a draft PDSA which will be led by the Government. | |
| 43 | Section I.E, p. 5 | Program Plan | Phase IB deliverable date is assumed to be at month 20. | Phase IB deliverable date will be approximately month 22. See amended RFS for updated graphic. | |
| 44 | Section I.E.3, p. 8 | Project Management - Cost/Price | It is assumed that SCO is responsible for the DOE regulatory costs. This will not be included in the partner team cost estimates. | Both statements are correct. However, Partner Teams will be expected to contribute data and information if requested. | |
| 45 | Section II.B, p. 9 | Security | Cost estimates for implementation and execution of programs to meet the requirements of security and export control are assumed to be included in the cost estimates for all phases. | Yes. Estimated costs should include costs for facility security clearances and the amount of personnel required to possess a personnel security clearance. | |
| 46 | Section III.C.6, p. 25 | System Safety | Unless otherwise specified, siting criteria will be assumed on a worst-case basis for external event analyses which signifcantly impacts cost and schedule in order to demonstrate capability to "meet NRC criteria for protection against external events and natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis." | This is correct. | |
| 47 | Section I.E.3, p. 8 | Project Management | Section I.E.3 states that during design phase 1 the partner teams are expected to work with the government team as a true partnership with the government. It is assumed during phase 1B and 2 that SCO will provide technical and project direction and oversee the roles and responsibilities between different entities and organizations (ex. SCO, DOE and Partner Team). | This is correct. | |
| 48 | Section II.B, p. 10 | Security | In Table 1 and the subsequent paragraph, it is described that DoD Components will accept DOE and NRC clearances for access to classified information including RD. Therefore, we believe that our (WesDyne International LLC) FOCI Mitigated via SSA, Department of Energy/NNSA, at the level of “L” (Secret) is acceptable for this submission. However, immediately upon award, we intend to begin the process of Facility Clearance Review/Reciprocity (as permitted by the DSS) by supplying our completed FOCI packages, the current SSA, AOP, TCP and corporate materials to dss.fcb@mail.mil. Is this an acceptable approach? | Yes. We recommend pursuing the (Defense Security Service) DSS FCL and FOCI mitigation. Please see the DSS website on how to start this process. | |
| 49 | Section I.B., p. 3 | General | Does SCO have a Draft OTA that can be shared with proposers? | The Government does not have a draft OTA that can be shared with proposers. Awards will be unique to each awardee. Proposers can find additional information about OTAs in the DoD Other Transactions Guide, available at the following link: https://www.dau.mil/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents/Other%20Transactions%20(OT)%20Guide.pdf | |
| 50 | Section I.C., p. 4 | Executive Summary | The RFS states the Government will take possession of the prototype reactor and fuel after the prototype demonstration phase. Who will have official possession of the reactor and fuel during the prototype demonstration phase? | Partner Teams will have access to fuel but the Government will retain ownership throughout Phase II. | |
| 51 | Section I.D., p. 4 | Technical Objectives | RFS states the package must be transportable by rail, train or plane. Air shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel in the U.S. must meet 10CFR71, which has stringent impact requirements. Will the prototype have to meet 10CFR71 and DOT 49CFR? | Air shipments will need to be certified by the relevant DoD authorities for the chosen plane. While 10CFR71 is a good guide, the new and disruptive nature of a mobile nuclear power plant means that Partner Teams must remain flexible should different standards be applied. | |
| 52 | Section I.D., p. 4 | Technical Objectives | What duty factor is assumed for the 3-year period between refueling events? | Partner Teams should propose the duty factor based on their design needs. | |
| 53 | Section I.E.1.a, p. 6 | Phase IA | Can SCO provide specific additional guidance on how to determine and/or quantify what “significant extent” means for participation of nontraditional defense contractors (NDCs) or nonprofit research institutions in the project? | The Government does not establish blanket rules or thresholds for determination of significance when assessing NDC/non-profit research instiution participation. Instead, the Agreements Officer (AO) is expected to consider input from relevant technical advisors in assessing the totality of the circumstances for each project before making an independent judgment as to the significance of expected participation. The AO will consider, as described in the OTA Guide as a means of illustration and not limitation, whether the NDC/nonprofit research institution will supply a new key technology, product or process; supply a novel application or approach to an existing technology, product or process; provide a material increase in the performance, efficiency, quality or versatility of a key technology, product or process; accomplish a significant amount of the prototype project; cause a material reduction in the cost or schedule of the prototype project; or, provide for a material increase in performance of the prototype project. | |
| 54 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security | Is it correct that CLASSIFIED information pertains ONLY to the nuclear reactor and to the information going into and out of the reactor (e.g., control system)? | We are unable to answer this question at this time, due to the fact that the classified aspects of the program are still being developed and will continue to deveolp over the course of Phase IA. | |
| 55 | Section III.B.1, p. 20 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Reference Black Start Capability, can we assume that diesel generators will be available for use at the deployment sites for this system? | No. | |
| 56 | Section III.C.1, p. 24 | Fuel | The RFS states that SCO will provide fuel compacts as identified by partner team. Does this mean that the team must disclose proprietary compact fabrication processes to SCO’s compact provider? | At a minimum, SCO will provide the TRISO particles and may provide the compacts. If the Partner Teams would like to make their own compacts they would need to submit a schedule and budget for fabricating them that includes transportation of the particles and any additional regulatory or security costs. | |
| 57 | Section III.C.1., p. 24 | Fuel | The RFS states the “U-235 enrichment level shall be ≤19.8 wt%” and that “partner teams should use Tables 4 and 5 in INL/EXT-16-40784 as SCO provided TRISO particle fuel properties and characteristics.” Table 4 of the INL report gives the UCO enrichment as 14 wt%. Will the partner team be bound to 14 wt% enrichment or have the liberty to specify the fuel enrichment up to 19.8 wt%? | Particle enrichment and particle diameter are inter-related. It is assumed that Partner Teams may need some variability in particle size and enrichment details, but Partner Teams need to assess the AGR data qualification space to achieve a design that is both fabricable and defendable from a licensability aspect. | |
| 58 | Section III.C.7, p. 26 | Components and Structures | How should an exception to a U.S. sourced component be requested of SCO? | The process for admitting exceptions to U.S. sourced components will be detailed post-award. | |
| 59 | Section III.B.2, p. 23 | Evaluation Factors - Factor 4 - Regulatory | Factor 4-Regulatory states in general that the DOE process for authorizing the operation of the prototype will follow DOE-STD-1189 including an SDS, draft PDSA, PDSA, and FDSA. Are these documents going to be developed by the government (INL?), developed by the government but with our support, or to be developed fully by our team? | The Government will be the lead. See response to question 15. | |
| 60 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | Section II, H, 1, the proposal instructions for the Technical Volume. While the cost volume has a table of contents, this volume does not indicate that one is desired. Does SCO desire a table of contents for the 50-page technical volume and, if so, is it within the page limit. | A table of contents is now included as part of the Cover Page portion of the technical volume. The table of contents will not count towards the page limit. See the amended RFS for a revision to the proposal instructions. | |
| 61 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | No list of acronyms is requested. Does SCO desire such a list and, if so, is it outside the page limitation? | Acronyms only need to be defined if the proposer feels it necessary to define an unfamiliar acronym. | |
| 62 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | May fonts smaller than 12-point be used for schedules, figures, drawings, tables, or graphics? Also, may 11x17 pages be used for the schedule, and, if so, how are those pages to be counted toward the page limitation? | The 12-point font requirement is for general text. For tables, figures, etc., the font shall not be smaller than 8-point font. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this correction. 11x17 pages are not allowed. | |
| 63 | Section II.H.1, p. 14 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | The RFS does not seem to allow for a cover or cover page. Typically, these are outside the page count and allow for the standard FAR protection regarding release of proprietary information. Is inclusion of a cover and cover page with that standard language permitted? If presented, is it outside the page-count limitation? | A cover page is included as part of the Technical Volume. The cover page may include directions regarding the release of proprietary information. The cover page will not count toward the 50 page limit. See the amended RFS for a revision addressing this correction. | |
| 64 | Section II.H.1.d, p. 16 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | Section II, H, 1, d, Technical Solution. This section refers to Section IV. Section IV is the acronym list. Is this reference actually to Section III, the evaluation criteria? | This is a typo. See the amended RFS for the correction. | |
| 65 | Section II.H.1.c, p. 15 | Proposal Instructions, Technical Volume | Section II, H, 1, c, Management Approach. This section under heading 4 Quality Assurance Processes asks for the key personnel, both technical and management, to be presented here. Is it SCO’s intention that these personnel be only QA personnel or is this where we are to present our overall management and technical team? | Overall management team and technical team should be presented in this section. | |
| 66 | Section I.B., p. 3 | General | As SCO will partner with DOE, will DEAR 952.250-70, Nuclear Hazards Indemnity Agreement, be included in the contract? | The provisions of DEAR 952.250-70 are not applicable to agreements entered into between the Department of Defense and proposing businesses. Consistent with statutory authority, the Department of Defense may negotiate the inclusion of an indemnification agreement if appropriate. | |
| 67 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security | There has been talk about expected personnel clearance level (PCL). On page 9 of the RFS, it seems to be settled on Secret. For planning purposes, is this firm or could it still change to Top Secret? | At this time, the minimum requirement is a SECRET facility and personnel security clearance for Phase IB and Phase II. | |
| 68 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security | We understand that the entire Program will not be Classified such that all Program personnel working will not require a Secret PCL. Has it been determined what scopes, systems, structures, or components will be Classified? | We are unable to answer this question at this time, due to the fact that the classified aspects of the program are still being developed and will continue to be developed over the course of Phase IA. | |
| 69 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,000 pounds. Why is the minimum requirement to be < 80,000 pounds? | The weight goal is based on the totality of assessed operational logistical and trasport requirements. The Government has also built in margin for safety and handling purposes. | |
| 70 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Does the 80,000 pound weight limit include the ISO container weight (typical 20-foot container weighs 4,500 pounds empty, can transport 40,000 pounds for gross weight capacity ~45,000 pounds, and 40-foot containers numbers are 7,000, 60,000 and 67,000 pounds)? | The complete system must fit within the 40 ton limit, including all containers. | |
| 71 | Section III.C.11, p. 26 | Security and Associated Cyber Protections | Is there a minimum requirement or expectation on number of containers? Recognizing the preference is to fit in one container, but the minimum requirement says total system must fit on a single C-17, which I believe could be up to 8 containers (too many I’m sure). | There is no hard limit on the number of containers, but ease of transportation is a consideration. | |
| 72 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Is there an anticipated or defined operational load profile for the micro reactor? What are the load following and capacity factor expectations? Ramp up and down rates? Minimal part load level? Minimum time to startup after full power scram to overcome Xenon transient? | At this time there are no hard technical requirements for load following or ramp up/down rates but greater flexibility in those areas is preferred. | |
| 73 | Section III.B.1, p. 19 | Minimum Technical Requirements | Are there any other defined technical requirements or codes and standards defined other than those listed or reference in the RFS document and DOE Standard No. DOE-STD-1189-2016 "Integration of Safety into the Design Process.“? | A code of record will be established for the project. It is planned that the Governement and Partner Teams will agree on the code of record soon after award. | |
| 74 | Section II.E.1, p. 6 | Program Plan | Will the Program follow DOE-STD-1189-2016 all the way through such that DOE approves the Design Safety Analysis (DSA) by issuing a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the prototype? | Yes. However, the Government will be the lead for this process. | |
| 75 | Section III.C.13, p. 23 | Licensing | Will the industry Licensing Modernization Program (LMP) be applied similar to the way it is being applied for the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR), which is also a DOE regulated project? | The licensing strategy will be outlined in the safety design strategy after award. | |
| 76 | Section III.C.13, p. 23 | Licensing | The RFS says “Systems should be capable of operation and able to obtain a license for operation at any location.” Are there going to be enveloping requirements for locations like a national lab, an Air Force base in Alaska, etc.? How will National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) strategy and analysis and Environmental Impact Statement be carried out without a target site? | The Government intends to initiate NEPA environmental review as soon as possible based upon facts known at the time and to conduct additional NEPA review(s) as necessary as project requirements change. NEPA environmental reviews for this program may be conducted on a project-specific or on broader programmatic level. Should the need arise, the Government may initiate a programmatic NEPA review to assess the environmental impacts of the whole program, with follow-on actions or siting based on the outcome of prior NEPA review or subsequent NEPA reviews tiered to the programmatic review. | |
| 77 | Section III.C.11, p. 26 | Transportation | Regarding 20ft ISO container dimensions, would an 8’6” tall container be considered ideal or would a ‘high cube’ 9’6” tall container also be considered equally ideal | Standard 8'6" tall is preferred for its increased ease of transport, but it is not required. A taller cube design will be considered. | |
| 78 | Section I.E.1.b, p. 5 & 6 | Phase I | For Phase IB, the Final Design Report is stated in section I.E.1.b as being due at month 22 and in section I.E.1.c as being due at month 20. Additionally, the cost proposal for Phase II shows being due at month 19 in "Fig.1 Program Plan Path” but is due at month 22 according to text in section I.E.1.c. Can these schedule dates be clarified? | Phase IB deliverables will be due at approximately month 22. See the amended RFS for the revision addressing this question. | |
| 79 | Section II.A.1.b, p. 7 | Phase IB | Since SCO will provide fuel compacts potentially to multiple remaining Partner Team in Phase II, are there preferred fuel compact dimensions for ease of manufacturing? If not possible to offered preferred dimensions now, could this information be provided during phase 1A or 1B to minimize costs to SCO? Can you confirm cylindrical fuel compacts are 2” long by ½” diameter, standard? | SCO will provide fuel particles and teams should identify compacts or fuel carrier designs that support their core concept and can get DOE authorization approval (i.e. data is available to support the safety basis). | |
| 80 | Section II.A.1.b, p. 7 | Phase IB | Is there information or test data that can be provided on external pressure and vibration capabilities of the fuel compacts? | This information or test data is not available. If the information is needed for a Partner Team design, the team should propose a schedule and cost for the experiment and how the data will support their design. | |
| 81 | Section III.C.3.12, p. 27 | Siting | In III.C.3.12 Siting, reference to “meeting DOE-STD-3009 Table 1”, what is the maximum consequence level desired for radiation exposure in an accident scenario? | Technical evaluation category No. 4, "Shielding plan to provide dose on surface contact," sufficiently addresses this question. | |
| 82 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security | Will SCO provide assistance to help contractor implement security requirements and develop classified plan? Or should a specialized subcontractor / consultant be included in the team/budget to ensure contractor implements and meets all security requirements and develops an appropriate classified plan? | At contract award, SCO will provide awardees a finalized DD254 which decribes all security requirements and guidance that will need to be followed for the duration of the contract. A draft DD254 has been included with the FedBizOps posting to provide Partner Teams with an understanding of SCO security requirements. SCO will create a Program Security Protection Plan for all Partner Teams to use as classification guidance. DoD requires that all cleared facilities have a Facility Security Officer as a Key Management Personnel (KMP) of the company. Please refer to the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manaual, DODM 5220.22. | |
| 83 | Section II.A.1.a & b, p. 6 | Phase IA and Phase IB | Regarding the “comprehensive build-ready design product” as defined by DOE-STD-1189-2016, Can we assume that the 1189-2016 can be tailored to the mobile, small reactor use case since the document and some requirements are for fixed location reactors? Will this also be true for the case of the SDS, PDSA, and FDSA deliverables? | This is correct. | |
| 84 | Section II.B., p. 9 | Security | How do we find our location’s DSS Field Office and contact info? | Please visit https://www.dss.mil/ma/ctp/io/fo/ for DSS Field Office locations and contact information. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.