Question
#/Section |
Question |
Answer |
Date
Posted |
1. L.2(f);M.1(b)
|
Mr.
Sloan stated there will be discussions/negotiations. Will the discussions be in the form
of an oral technical presentation? In other words, does the DOE anticipate that orals will
be conducted following submittal of the written proposals and prior to award? Please clarify "oral discussions." Will there be formal oral
presentations and discussions similar to the Oak Ridge M&I? |
The
RFP provides that either written or oral discussions will be initiated with offerors in
the competitive range. The extent and nature of these discussions are a matter of the
Government’s judgement. If oral discussions are held, a complete oral presentation of
the entire proposal will not be required. Rather, the oral discussions, or written
discussions, would concern those matters related to the offeror’s proposal that DOE
requests the offeror to address, e.g., weaknesses in or clarifications to the proposal as
identified by DOE. |
12/15/00 |
2. L.16, L-16.
|
This
section defines the small business NAICS Code as 23331, with revenues not to exceed
$5million/year. Please clarify that this code applies only to a potential prime offeror
and that small business team partners may be classified in whatever code best matches
their role in executing the statement of work. |
This
acquisition is unrestricted and contains no set-aside provisions. Team partners may be
classified in whatever code best matches their role. This NAICS code applies to any small
business that competes as a prime offeror. |
11/21/00 |
3. L.19.
Preproposal Conference-Site Tour |
A.
Can the bidders send a different group of personnel to the preproposal conference and the
site tours? |
A.
Yes, you may send different attendees to the site tours and preproposal conference. |
11/3/00 |
| . |
B.
Does the limitation of four personnel also apply to the preproposal conference? |
B.
No. There is no limitation on attendees for the preproposal conference. |
11/3/00 |
| . |
C.
Do we have to file the same forms for foreign nationals for the preproposal conference
that are required for the site tours, since the preproposal conference is not being held
on a DOE site? |
C.
No. There will be a registration desk for sign-in at the preproposal conference, but no
forms are required. |
11/3/00 |
4. L.19(b), L-17.
|
Our
team member companies have not made multiple submittals of their intent to propose. The
site tour restriction of 4 persons per proposing entity/team is limiting when you consider
the number of professional disciplines required to design, cost estimate and construct
this project. Would DOE consider raising the team limit to 6 persons? |
DOE
does not have any plans to raise the team limit for the site tours. The tour is a driving
tour only with no disembarkment. All germane information from the tour will be posted on
the DUF6 RFP web site. DOE feels that four is an adequate number of
participants for each offeror to view the sites. |
11/21/00 |
| 5. L.22. |
The
RFP does not prohibit alternate offers as has been the case in recent DOE project
procurements. Does DOE desire bidders to submit alternate offers? (Example: Fixed-price
bid.) |
While
the RFP does not prohibit alternate offers, it does not solicit alternate offers. An offer
that is not responsive to the terms of the RFP may not be accpetable unless an amendment
to the RFP is issued which would change the terms of the RFP and allow other offerors to
propose on similar terms. See RFP provision L.22(f) and Federal Acquisition Regulation
15.206(d). |
12/20/00 |
| 6. L.22(e)(8). |
How
will the NEPA support data be evaluated? This can be very costly to prepare. Will there be
any sort of point scoring of this data? |
The
NEPA support data currently required by L.22(e)(8) will be moved from Volume I, Offer to
Volume II, Technical and Business Management Proposal under Criterion 1,
Technology/Design. This information will be evaluated as a part of the technical proposal
consistent with Section M. In addition, the NEPA support data will be utilized by DOE to
begin its responsibilities with respect to the NEPA process (10 CFR 1021.216). If any
information requested to be contained in the NEPA support data (attachment L3) is
considered duplicative to any other requested information contained in L.23(c), the
information must first be included in the NEPA support data (attachment L3), and the
offeror may choose whether to also address this information in other portions of the
technical and business management proposal. The information contained in the NEPA support
data (attachment L3) is to be included within the 300 page limitation specified in
L.23(a)(2). This change will be included in an amendment to the RFP. |
01/11/01 |
7. L.22(e)(6), L-21.
|
The
RFP requests submittal of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If the offeror chooses a
prime/sub teaming structure, major scope elements such as design and construction will
likely be performed by large business team partners. In preparing the Small Business
Subcontracting Plan, may pre-selected team subcontractors be excluded from the
subcontracting pool on which plan goals are based? |
Pre-selected
subcontractors may not be excluded from the subcontracting pool on which plan goals are
based. The subcontracting pool must include all planned subcontracting work. |
11/21/00 |
8. L.23
|
In
the spirit of "environmentalism," would a submittal for this proposal via either
a secure web site or CD be considered in lieu of some or all of the paper copies required
in L.21? (b)(1)? In addition to environmental benefits, DOE would benefit from the ability
to perform key word searches, facilitate distribution, and potentially facilitate the
review process. |
Clause
L.23 of the RFP states "Video tapes, audio tapes, and floppy discs will not be
reviewed." It is DOE’s intent not to review electronically submitted information
including CDs. DOE’s evaluation methods require the requested number of hard copies.
Therefore, we do not anticipate a change or reduction to the number of copies. |
12/08/00 |
9. L.23(a)(2).
|
We
appreciate the Source Evaluation Board's 12/14/00 clarification on type size. When applied
to typical proposal graphics (e.g., organization charts), we find that increasing a
typical 9-point graphic font to 11 points results in graphics that no longer fit on an
8-1/2 by 11-inch page (see attached samples). We would like the SEB to consider a type
size for graphics that is suitable for presenting relationships among graphic elements
while still maintaining legibility. Would the 9-point Arial font shown on our samples be
acceptable for use on graphics? |
The
Offeror shall use Times New Roman 12 font, Arial 11 font, or a larger type size on all
material in their proposal including graphics. Graphics which will not fit on a 8-1/2 by
11-inch page can be placed on a "fold-out" page, printed in landscape mode, or
printed on two pages. |
01/18/01 |
10. L.23(a)(2)
|
A.
Does the Volume 2 page limit of 300 pages discussed in L.23(a)(2) include tabs, table of
contents, title sheet, and index? |
A.
Any page which contains information is included in the 300-page limit. Therefore, if tabs
contain no information other than the name of the section, you do not need to count them.
You must count the table(s) of contents, title sheet(s), and index(ices). |
12/08/00 |
| 11. L.23(a)(2) |
B.
In Section L.23(a)(2) you state that "type size shall not exceed 12 characters per
inch average over one full line of text." Would you provide this in font point sizes.
e.g. 12 point Times New Roman? Is this restriction intended to only apply to body text and
not headings or graphics? |
B.
DOE does not wish to specify a required font, but would rather allow Offerors to have the
flexibility to choose. Yes, the restriction does apply to headings and graphics
Revised, 12/14/00: The Source Evaluation Board has also received
many questions and comments concerning the L.23 (a)(2)(i) statement that "Type size
shall not exceed 12 characters per inch average over one full line of text." The
Board has reconsidered previous answers and has determined that the sentence
should be deleted and the following substituted therefore:
"The Offeror shall use Times New Roman 12 font, Arial 11 font, or a larger type size
of these two fonts."
An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the new requirements for font and type
size. |
01/17/01
|
12. L.23(a)(2)(i)
|
A.
In L.23(a)(2)(i) on page L-22 you state that the "type size shall not exceed 12
character per inch average over one line of text." Does that apply to graphics and
footnotes? |
A.
Yes.
Revised, 12/14/00: See question 10. |
01/17/01 |
13.L.23(a)(2)(i)
|
B.
Section L.23(a)(2)(i) states, in part, that "Type size shall not exceed 12 characters
per inch average over one full line of text." Times New Roman 11 point yields an
average of 15.3 characters per inch. Times New Roman 12 point yields an average of 13.5
characters per inch. The Time New Roman font size required to achieve a 12 character per
inch average over one full line of text is 13 points. Would DOE, please consider using the
following revised language for limiting font sizes? The font size for all body text in the proposal shall be 11 point or large.
Text lines in body text shall be spaced at no less than 1 space (single spaced). Text size
used in figures, tables, and spreadsheets may be no less than 8 point, but must be clearly
legible. |
B.
DOE does not anticipate making a change to the requirements of Section L.23.
Revised, 12/14/00: See question 10. |
01/17/01 |
14.4-9.L.23(c)(2)(iii)
|
Will
DOE make any of its disposal sites available for waste and conversion products
disposition? If so, which sites? |
Disposition
of all wastes and conversion products are the responsibility of the Contractor. DOE
disposal sites are available for Contractor consideration. |
01/11/01 |
15.
L.23.
Clause L.23(c)(1)(iv) |
Does
the hundred million per year include storage (storage yards) condition upgrades? |
Yes. |
12/13/00 |
| 16A.
L.23(a)(2)(i), L-22. |
A.
Will DOE exclude title page, table of contents, table of figures, and Acronym List from
the 300 page limitation? |
A, B,C. The 300-page limitation includes all information
(pages) of the Technical Volume II. No pages are excluded. |
11/21/00 |
| 16B.
L.23(a)(2)(i), L-22. |
B.
The Key Personnel 2-page resumes are currently included in the 300 page limit? We
believe it is in the DOE’s best interest for the offeror to commit those employees
who fulfill the functional areas required in the RFP and those other areas that we propose
as critical to the success and credibility of our approach. Including the resumes in the
page limitation is a disincentive to this commitment because it forces the offeror to
tradeoff 2 additional pages that could be used to more fully describe our approach in
order to add each additional key person. Will DOE exempt the 2-page resumes of key
personnel from the 300 page limitation?
|
| 16C.
L.23(d)(2)(vi), L-27. |
C.
This section requests an integrated project critical path schedule at the expanded WBS
level. May the offeror provide a summary level schedule in this section and present the
detailed schedule in an appendix outside the page limitation? |
17. L.23(d)(1)(i)(D)
|
Section
L.23, d(1)(i)(D), second sentence requests that Offerors, "Describe the proposed term
of subcontracts,..." We presume ‘term’ refers to the period of performance
or length of time the proposed subcontracts will be in effect. Is this correct? |
Yes. |
12/08/00 |
18. L.23(d)(2)
|
B.2.
(a) requests total cost for design of both processing facilities. RFP L.24. (f) requests
separate estimates for each facility. Should WBS follow Section B.2? (a) or L.24. (f)? |
Section
B.2 delineates the top-level proposed costs for the contract, and accompanies the Offer in
Volume I of your proposal. Section L.24 provides guidance for preparation of Volume III,
Cost Proposal, such that DOE can adequately evaluate the Offeror’s proposed cost. The
level of WBS that the Offeror proposes in response to Section L.23(d)(2) is at its own
discretion, but as requested in the RFP, should be "expanded down to a level
necessary to capture all the elements of the Statement of Work". |
12/13/00 |
19. L.23(c)(1)(iv)
|
Section
L.23.(c).(1)(iv) states "Describe the approach for plant operations and the quantity
of depleted UF6 to be processed over the life of the plant (not to exceed 25 years and
assume $100M per year funding inFY2000 constant dollars) and on an annual basis during the
term of the contract. This should include degree of automation, operating shifts required,
and manpower projections." Section L.24(g)(4)(ii) requires that,"For the purpose
of proposal preparation, the amount of funds that will be available for each fiscal year
of the 5 year contract period of conversion operations and cylinder management is
estimated to be $100 million in Fiscal Year 2000 dollars escalated 2% annually." Is
the $100 million per year a target or a maximum? |
The
$100M per year is the level of funding projected to be available for this project on a
continuing basis. Funds availability at this level is subject to appropriation by Congress
on a yearly basis. |
01/30/01 |
| 20A. Clause L.23(c)(1)(iv). |
A.
(At the pre-proposal conference) What was Don (Wierwille’s) reference to limit of
less than $100M per year? |
A,
B. The RFP states to "Assume $100M/year funding in FY2000 constant dollars
on an annual basis." The annual total costs proposed for all scope under this
contract during the operations period must be within the $100M/year scenario. |
12/13/00 |
| 20B.
Clause L.23(c)(1)(iv). |
B.
What is the basis for establishing a maximum of $100M over 25 years (approximately
$4M/year) as the total funding allowed for operations, maintenance, and cylinder
management? How was this figure determined? The pre-conceptual design study by Bechtel and
LLNL appear to indicate much higher costs.
|
| 21. L.23(c)(1)(iv) and
L.24(g)(4)(ii)
|
Section
L.23(c)(1)(iv) states, "Describe the approach for plant operations and the quantity
of depleted UF6 to be processed over the life of the plant (not to exceed 25 years and
assume $100M per year funding in FY2000 constant dollars) and on an annual basis during
the term of the contract. This should include degree of automation, operating shifts
required, and manpower projections. Section L.24 (g)(4)(ii) requires that, "For the
purpose of proposal preparation, the amount of funds that will be available for each
fiscal year of the 5 year contract period of conversion operations and cylinder management
is estimated to be $100 million in Fiscal Year 2000 dollars escalated 2% annually."
While the RFP places an annual funding limitation on operations, none is specified for
design and construction. Moreover, the RFP does not state whether the annual funding
limitation applies to a single plant, both processing facilities (Paducah and Portsmouth),
or both processing facilities and all cylinder maintenance activities, including the
transportation of ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth. 1. Does the annual DOE funding
limitation ($100M) apply to only a single facility, thereby allowing an operating budget
of $200M per year for both facilities?
2. Does DOE intend to apply an annual funding limitation during design and construction
of the Paducah and Portsmouth processing facilities? |
1.
No. The stated annual DOE funding limitation of $100M per year during operations covers
all costs performed under the contract, including operations of both sites, cylinder
surveillance and maintenance, transportation of ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth, and
transporting converted material to disposal site. 2. No. The successful proposer's
design and construction funding cost estimate incorporated into the contract will form the
basis of the Department's request to Congress for funding for design and construction.
However, Congressional appropriations will govern the project's funding level(s) during
the design and construction phase. |
12/01/00 |
22. L.23(e)(7).
|
In
Section L.23(e)(7) you list the functional areas for key personnel. Please clarify the
function of Nuclear Material Management. |
Nuclear
materials control and accountability functions are required for the management of nuclear
materials stored, processed or handled in the proposed conversion facilities. |
12/22/00 |
23. L.23(e)(9).
|
Section
L.23(e)(9) indicates that the respondents to the RFP should address the issue of
environmental justice. Is there a specific environmental justice issue(s) at Portsmouth,
Paducah, or ETTP that should be addressed in the proposal response? If so, please provide
a reference to this issue(s)? |
Environmental
justice issues depend on the specifics of a particular Offeror's proposal. Offerors should
identify and assess any environmental justice issues that are associated with their
respective technologies and proposals. DOE is subject to Executive Order 12898 regarding
environmental justice, and the US Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility for
enforcement of the Order. EPA's web page for environmental justice is at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/index.html. |
12/22/00 |
24. L.24.
|
Does
DOE expect separate funding types, i.e., capital and expense? |
Yes.
DOE expects to receive line item (capital) funding for construction activities and
operating (expense) funding for conversion operations activities. |
01/08/01 |
25. L.24.
|
We
request DOE reconsider its waste disposal approach in the RFP in order to give DOE the
lowest cost, best value approach. Currently, if a proposer chooses NTS, they must use
$9.00/cu ft plus a truck transportation cost to get the product from the railhead to NTS.
If they are successful at negotiating and fixing a contract with another waste site for a
costless than ($9/cu ft plus truck transportation cost minus the additional train
transport cost to get to another site), they will be in lower cost position for their
proposal. However, if this proposer wins, DOE and the tax payers will lose when the NTS
per cu ft rate drops next year and they have already locked into an agreement with another
disposal site. We strongly suggest that DOE level the playing field in this RFP by 1)
requiring every proposer to use the assumed NTS disposal rate ($9/cu ft) and a truck rate
from the railhead to NTS ($1600/waste shipment on 80,000 GVW trucks), and 2) evaluating
all bidders using this same rate and 3) after award DOE should participate with the
selected contractor in the negotiation and selection of the final disposal site (NTS or
and other site) and the final disposal rate since DOE is the largest generator and can
command the best rates. We suggest the above approach is the fairest to all bidders,
provides DOE a basis for a true "apples to apples" comparison of the proposals,
and ensures after the award the best value, lowest cost disposal option to DOE and the
taxpayers. |
It
is the intent of the RFP as structured to allow offerors the flexibility to propose
different approaches to waste disposal and associated costs, rather than define one basis
that all offerors are obligated to follow. The RFP does specify for uniformity that if the
Nevada Test Site is the proposed disposal site, the Offeror shall use a disposal fee of
$9/cu ft. In terms of the contract requirements, it is the Contractor’s
responsibility to arrange for the disposal of wastes rather than DOE’s obligation to
arrange for such. However, under the terms of the contract, DOE does have certain controls
with respect to administration of the contract such as approval of the Contractor’s
Waste Management Plan (D-7), and subcontract approvals under clause I.98, Subcontracts. |
02/09/01 |
26. L.24(f).
|
Section
L.24 (f) states that "separate estimates are required for work scope related to
and/or performed at Paducah, Portsmouth, and East Tennessee Technology Park." Section
L.24 (g) (1)-(6) more specifically defines the costs that are to be separately identified
by activity, sub-activity and facility. Please confirm that separate costs for
facility locations are required only as specifically cited in (g) (1)-(6). |
Sections
L.24 (f) and (g) require Offerors to propose separate cost estimates for
activities/sub-activities at Paducah, activities/sub-activities at Portsmouth, and
activities/sub-activities at East Tennessee Technology Park. |
01/08/01 |
27. L.24.(g)(1).
|
Section
L.24 (g) (1) Please confirm that the estimated costs for the annual updating of the System
Requirements Document should be presented in the sub-activity "system
requirements" under Permitting and Design Activity. |
The
estimated cost of the System Requirements Document should be included in the system
requirements sub-activity under the Permitting and Design Activity. Proposed cost for
updating the System Requirements Document should be included in the project management
sub-activity for the activity phase of the project when the update is prepared. |
01/08/01 |
28. L.24(g)(1).
|
Section
L.24 (g) (1) lists a sub-activity "system requirements" to be separately listed
in the cost estimate. Please advise if DOE has a preference under which sub-activity(ies)
the estimated costs should be included for the remainder of the deliverables listed on
pages C-27 and C-28, i.e., Project Quality Assurance Plan, Radiation Protection Plan, Site
Security Plan, etc. |
The
proposed cost for deliverables should be included in the most appropriate subactivity. A
number of the deliverables would logically fall under project management, e.g., those
listed in the question (Project Quality Assurance Plan, Radiation Protection Plan, Site
Security Plan). In addition, the proposed cost for deliverables should be included in the
phase of the project (design, construction, or operation) in which the deliverable is due. |
01/08/01 |
29. L.24 (g)(4)(i) and (iv).
|
Section
L.24 (g) (4) (i) and (iv). Please advise if the Offeror is to include in the cost of
transport and disposal of uranium conversion product(UO2 or U3O8 or UF4) that it cannot
beneficially reuse or sell. |
Yes.
The estimated cost for the transport and disposal of conversion product not destined for
use/reuse should be included in the transportation and disposal sub-activities. |
01/08/01 |
30. L.24 (g)(4)(ii)
|
Section
L.24(g)(4)(ii) requires that, "For the purpose of proposal preparation, the amount of
funds that will be available for each fiscal year of the 5-year contract period of
conversion operations and cylinder management is estimated to be $100 million in Fiscal
Year 2000 dollars escalated 2% annually." Does the $100M ceiling include the
contractor's fee, or is fee to be provided in a separate budget like DOE Program
Direction? |
Yes,
the contractor’s fee is included in the $100M per year funding. |
02/05/01 |
31. L.24(g)(4)(iv).
|
The
RFP states that the cost to dispose of LLW at NTS should be calculated using $9/ft3.
This rate has changed recently, and will change in the future. Some companies are using a
rate other than the advertised current rate. Is it DOE’s intent to have all
competitors use the $9/ft3 rate for NTS disposal? |
Yes. |
12/01/00 |
32. L.26.
Intention to Propose |
A.
Please refer to Section L of the subject RFP, Article L.26 on pages L-37 and L-38. This
article contains a form on the composition and organization of the bidding team and its
intent to submit a proposal in response to the RFP. ... We would like to request that the
submittal of the information on the composition of the team and the business relationship
between the team members be delayed. |
A.
The purpose of the Intention to Propose form is to let DOE plan for the number of
proposals and to verify that people requesting to attend the site tours plan to submit
proposals. We did not anticipate that this form would solidify partnering relationships.
We understand that these relationships may change before proposals are due. Please submit
your Intention to Propose form based on your current information. |
11/9/00 |
| . |
B.
On page L-37 of the DUF6 RFP the Intent to Propose asks for submittal within 10
calendar days of issue. This would mean the intent to propose is due Thursday, November 9,
2000. Is this submittal date a compliance issue, where if we did not submit our Intent to
Propose by November 9th, then we would not be allowed to propose? Or can we
submit our intent as soon as reasonably possible? |
B.
The intention to propose information is "requested," and you are not precluded
from submitting an offer if this information is not submitted. The purpose of the
Intention to Propose form is to let DOE plan for the number of proposals and to verify
that people requesting to attend the site tours plan to submit proposals. |
11/10/00 |
| . |
C.
Do we have to file the same forms for foreign nationals for the preproposal conference
that are required for the site tours, since the preproposal conference is not being held
on a DOE site? |
C.
No. There will be a registration desk for sign-in at the preproposal conference, but no
forms are required. |
11/3/00 |
33. L. Att. L.5.
|
The
items in this attachment are numbered one through five, with a sixth item that appears to
be numbered incorrectly. Should the items in this attachment be numbered one through six? |
The
attachments to Section L are numbered L1 through L6. The attachments are as follows: L1 - Past Performance Questionnaire and Transmittal Letter
L2 - Resume Format
L3 - NEPA Data
L4 - Tour Registration Sheet, Part 1 & 2
L5 - Management Team Questionnaire
L6 - Offeror Past Performance ES&H Information Form |
11/21/00 |
