Question
#/Section |
Question |
Answer |
Date
Posted |
1. M.1(b); L.2(f).
|
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. M.2.
|
In
reviewing the evaluation criteria (M.2), we did not find any evaluation criteria for
operations and maintenance, and yet this is called out as a mission-critical scope element
in Section C IX (Conversion Operations) and Section L.23(c)(1)(iv). Please clarify how DOE
intends to evaluate the offeror’s approach for operations and maintenance. |
It
is not DOE’s intent that every aspect of the Statement of Work be addressed in the
evaluation. There are, however, aspects of operations and maintenance activities embodied
in the evaluation of several areas. For example, the evaluation of the offeror’s
overall project management and business management activities (Criteria 2 & 3), which
evaluate the offeror’s effectiveness in accomplishing a multifaceted statement of
work, and the evaluation of technology/design, (Criteria 1) for which the offeror will
provide its approach for plant operations. |
01/18/01 |
3. M.2(b).
|
Section
M.2 (b) states in part that, "Based on its review DOE will determine a most probably
cost to the Government, which may include applicable life cycle cost through disposition
to use for the evaluated cost." Due to the inclusion of the word "may," the
evaluation criteria is unclear regarding which cost will take precedence in DOE’s
evaluation. |
This
will be clarified in an amendment to the RFP. |
01/30/01 |
4. M.2(b).
|
It
appears with the current amendment, Clause M.2(b), DOE will evaluate the contract cost
without performing a Net Present Value analysis for the design, construction and 5-year
operating and maintenance cost (8-10 yrs total), and you will separately evaluate the NPV
cost of the post-contract life-cycle (up to 25 yrs). It would appear to make the most
sense to do an NPV on the entire period of design, construction and full operations
(contract + post contract) consistent with previous DOE evaluations; e.g., Livermore
report, and so that all offeror's cost can be evaluated on an equal comparative basis. We
suggest DOE modify attachment L7 to include the entire life-cycle cost on an NPV basis. |
DOE
has considered this matter, but DOE does not intend to revise the RFP to require offerors
to submit net present value computations for the contract period cost. |
02/09/01 |
5. M.2(b).
|
Discounting
the life cycle cost might cause some offerors to propose smaller size plants with a longer
life cycle which would in reality cost more in the long run but because of the net present
value calculation, appear to cost less for both the contract period and the life cycle
cost. What is the intent of DOE? |
Amendment
2, Revision 29, changed M.2(b) and states in paragraph (2) that "In addition, the
cost proposal for the contract period and the cost estimate for the post contract
life-cycle period will be compared to the technical and business management proposal for
consistency and understanding of the Statement of Work. Although the contract period only
extends through the first five years of conversion operations, the Government is not
seeking offers that minimize contract costs by raising total life-cycle project costs and
Offerors proposals will be evaluated accordingly." |
02/16/01 |
6. M.2(c).
|
We
assume: that fixed fee for design work will be evaluated according to M.2(c)(1), DEAR
915.4; that construction incentive fee will be evaluated according to M.2(c)(2), the
degree to which the offeror is willing to put incentive fee at risk; and that award fee
will be evaluated according to M.2(c)(3), the degree to which the offeror is willing to
put operations award fee at risk. Is this interpretation correct? |
Not
totally. All fee will be evaluated in accordance with DEAR Subpart 915.4. This includes
all three fee types: fixed, incentive, and award. For incentive fee paragraph (2) of
M.2(c) also applies. For award fee paragraph (3) of M.2(c) also applies. |
02/09/01 |
