U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Contracts, Attn: Linda Wise MS-T-7I2, Washington, D.C. 20555

B -- TECHNICAL REVIEW OF RELIABILITY AND RISK RELATED STUDIES SOL RQ.82878012-Amend No. 1 DUE 061598 POC Contact: Yvette Brown, Procurement Specialist, 301/415-6507; Sharon Mearse, Contracting Officer, 301/415-7315 The purpose of this amendment number one (1) is to revise the due date for receipt of proposals from 3:30 p.m. on June 5, 1998 to 3:30 p.m. on June 15, 1998, and to provide responses to questions received through June 3, 1998. QUESTION 1.Please confirm that the bid is due 06/05/98. ANSWER 1. The due date for submitting bid is extended to 3:30 p.m. (EDST) June 15, 1998. QUESTION 2. Questions relating to firm fixed price and level of effort assumptions to use in the cost proposal: a. We note that a firm fixed price is requested for the work, yet the scope of work is not entirely fixed (e.g., item c of the work scope statement). b. Since the contractors are quoting a firm fixed price for the work, how will NRC determine the level of effort for each contractor should NRC make multiple awards? c. Should we assume that one set of intermediate results of the HPI and RPS studies is to be reviewed (item 4 of the work scope statement)? d. The solicitation requires a Firm Fixed Price for the work, but the exact scope of work will not be decided until the INEEL studies are delivered to the offer and the NRC technical monitor approves the review plan. Does this mean that a Firm Fixed Price is required only for the travel (six trips) and fixed rated for proposed personnel? e. Should it be assumed that work would be required on a firm fixed basis after the technical monitor approves the review plan? f. Should bidders prepare their cost proposal on the specific scope of work as stated in the CBD: If so, what is the estimate level of effort by the government for this work? It has been the practice of NRC to specify the estimated FTE per task or project in past procurements. Alternatively, should the offeror prepare their cost response on a per review bases? g. Should the offeror propose a fixed hourly rate for each individual technical expert that is proposed? A specific number of hours per year can be specified for each candidate(s) or for the entire project by the NRC which the offeror can utilize to arrive at a fixed price for the overall independent technical review project. h. Price proposal -- is it sufficient to quote an hourly rate for the consulting services? i. Should the cost estimate be Firm Fixed Price or Fixed Unit Rate? ANSWER 2 a-i: It is anticipated that award will be made based on fixed hourly rates in accordance with the estimates provided below and estimated travel costs. The assumptions listed below shall be used to prepare the cost estimate. In addition, the proposal shall identify the individual cost estimate for each proposed technical expert by name. Labor estimate that will be charged while in transient shall be provided for each trip to Idaho Falls, ID under task 4, described below. Task 2 -- a total estimate of 44 person-hours to develop technical review plans for eleven system reliability studies (i.e., high pressure injection (HPI) system, reactor protection system (RPS) for the three vendors, five system updates, and two "other" studies). Task 3 -- a total estimate of 16 person-hours to review the INEEL HPI and RPS project plans. Task 4 -- a total estimate of 48 and 144 person-hours to review intermediate results of the HPI and the three RPS vendor studies, respectively (3 reviews planned for each system study for a total of 12 reviews); and two one-day review meetings in Idaho Falls, ID for the HPI study and one one-day review meeting in Idaho Falls, ID for the General Electric RPS study. No meetings are planned for the two other RPS vendor studies. Task 5 -- a total estimate of 352 person-hours to review the draft reports for the eleven studies defined in the task 2 assumption, above. Task 6 -- The level of effort to document comments and recommended changes to each review are included in the estimates provided above. QUESTION 3. The solicitation states that multiple awards may be made. Does NRC intend to award a Basis Purchase Order, under which separate task order will be competed/awarded for each review? ANSWER 3:No. QUESTION 4. Should we assume that activities not explicitly described in the statement of work are not to be included in the cost estimate? ANSWER 4. Use the assumptions provided in the answer to Question 2, above, as the basis for the cost estimate. QUESTION 5. Should we also assume that the review meetings are to present and discuss the results of the reviews, rather than performance of the reviews? ANSWER 5. Yes. QUESTION 6.Should we assume that item 1 and item 5 of the work scope statement refer to the same activities? ANSWER 6. Yes. QUESTION 7. On page 3 of the solicitation, Instructions for Proposal Presentation, para. g., there is a requirement that a matrix be provided of proposed personnel against the personnel requirements listed in section D. There is no lettered section D. Does section D mean the experience listed in (1) through (7) of page 2 of the solicitation? ANSWER 7. Yes. The experience listed in (1) through (7) is associated with the section titled PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS. QUESTION 8. Please clarify which studies are still in the planning stage and which are underway or complete and issued? The write-up indicates that the HPI and RPS studies are in the planning stage but implies that the studies for HPCS, HPCI, etc. are not. Is this assumption correct? ANSWER 8. The HPI system reliability study and General Electric RPS unavailability study has started in middle May 1998. The remaining RPS studies will be started in CY-1999. The five updated supplements to already completed system studies will start in CY-1999. The complete studies includes HPCS, HPCI, IC, RCIC and EDG, which covers the period 1987 to 1993. The supplements will add operating experience from 1994 to 1998. QUESTION 9. Do these studies (planned or completed) just address equipment reliability concerns or are they concerned with other issues such as consequences of partial or complete system failure; i.e., are any of these mini-PRA studies? ANSWER 9. These studies use fault tree models that are quantified to estimate system unavailability. The level of the model is dictated by the reactor operating experience data obtained from licensee event reports. The main failure modes addressed are failure to start, failure to run, and maintenance out of service. Human performance and common cause failures are also considered as indicated by the operating experience data. In some instances, more that one top event will be needed because the safety system is needed in accident scenarios that have different success criteria. QUESTION 10. Are the results of these studies expected to be qualitative or quantitative? If the latter, what tools are used for quantifications (e.g., Event Trees, Fault Trees, Reliability equations on a spreadsheet), and are the data sources proprietary or publicly available? ANSWER 10. The studies are both qualitative and quantitative. Fault trees are constructed and quantified using Saphire. The data for the safety system studies come from licensee event reports. Actual demands and failures for the trains are obtained from the LERs. Engineering insights are then obtained for the important contributors to the system unavailability. LERs are publicly available. For the RPS studies, NPRDS, which is proprietary, is the main source of the data. QUESTION 11. Regarding the "five undated supplements to completed studies", will these completed studies be made available to the reviewers? Will other industry studies such as PRAs and IPEs be made available to the reviewers as well? ANSWER 11. All materials and references needed to perform each review, as described in the NRC approved review plan developed under task 2 of the scope of work, will be provided. QUESTION 12. Past performance of proposed professional personnel should this information be included in the same matrix, or in a separate summary? ANSWER 12. A separate summary would be sufficient. QUESTION 13. For the new system reliability studies (HPI, CE-RPS, GE-RPS, B&W-RPS), what level of review is required? ANSWER 13. The areas of review are summarized in Task 1 of the scope of work. The extent of the review (level of effort, specific review topics) will be proposed by the contractor(s) during the development of the technical review plan under Tasks 2 and 3. Each technical review plan will be negotiated by the NRC technical monitor and approved by the NRC project officer. QUESTION 14.Are fault trees to be reviewed? ANSWER 14. Yes. QUESTION 15.Are the quantifications of all fault tree basic events to be reviewed? ANSWER 15. All reviews are to be performed in accordance with the scope of work and the approved technical review plan. From past experience, only the major contributors are reviewed. QUESTION 16. For the events assessment, are raw data to be reviewed for their applicability to the reliability (or fault tree) model? ANSWER 16. The extent of review of raw failure events will be documented in the NRC approved technical review plan. From past experience, not all failure events are reviewed by technical experts. The number of event reviewed will depend on its importance to the overall unreliability results. Common cause failure and error of commission/omission events are typically reviewed. A table of independent failure events with a one or two line event description would be provided to the technical reviewers for a quick review. QUESTION 17.What is the extent (or size) of the raw database? ANSWER 17. The number of failure events can range from 15 (HPCS) to about 1000 (Westinghouse RPS). QUESTION 18. For the undated supplements to completed system reliability studies (HPCS, HPCI, IC, RCIC, EDG), are only new data to be reviewed, or are all areas of the study to be reviewed (similar to as if they were new system reliability studies)? Which, if any, aspects of the completed system reliability studies are not to be subject to additional review as part of the updated supplement review? Assuming that the updated supplements involve new data, what is the extent (or size) of the additional raw data base? ANSWER 18. Selected failure events, quantification results, and new engineering insights will be the scope of the review of updated supplements. The scope, approach, models, methods, and assumptions probably will not be included in the review, however, the extent of review will be determined during the development and negotiation of the technical review plan for each supplement. QUESTION 19. For the "Other reliability and risk-related studies performed by NRC offices and industry," how may studies to be reviewed should be assumed for costing purposes? What is the nature of these studies, and what is the level of review required for these studies? ANSWER 19. Two "other" studies should be assumed for costing purposes. Examples of past reviews include NRC special studies on fire events, service water system reliability, and various type of valves (e.g., safety relief, motor operated, air operated). Future review of other studies have not been identified. The scope of the reviews will be in accordance with the scope of work and the NRC technical review plan. QUESTION 20. Are their incumbent contractor(s) for this work? ANSWER 20. No. Similar expert technical review work was included in an agreement with DOE/INEEL. (0155)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0017 19980608\B-0002.SOL)