1.__JEFO_-_SF1014_signed_LDR.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

SF 1014 - JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION

TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Treasury Standard Form – 1014 (Rev 5/18)

Prescribed by Treasury: DTAP 1016.505

Tracking No.

1. Identification of the requiring activity and the contracting activity:

The requiring activity is the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Information Technology (IT) Office and the contracting activity is IRS.

2.a Nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The purpose of this Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity is to obtain approval to extend Task Order (TO) TIRNO-11-D-00027, 0014 with Northrop Grumman for the continued support services described in section 3.a below. The need date for these items is July 16, 2019.

The period of performance will be for July 16 – October 15, 2019 (3 months).

2.b Name of the vendor. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation 2.c Requisition No.: (not currently available) 2.d Bridge contract: ☐Yes ☐X - No 2.e Brand name: ☐Yes ☐X - No 3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs:

The proposed support is for an extension of services supporting the Infrastructure Shared Services (ISS) TO for three (3) months, to allow for the GAO decision in response to a protest received challenging the award decision of the follow-on TO.

The required ISS services provide the IRS with the following desired outcomes:

• Effective communication results in the customer and the Office of Solution Engineering (SE) sharing a common understanding of the customer’s needs, life cycle ROM costs, and the project schedule.

• Modernized infrastructure that meets the performance goals of the IRS business customers.

• Perform infrastructure capacity planning and analysis to ensure thorough objective evidence that the products recommended shall satisfy the requirements.

• Security and infrastructure solutions are effectively deployed allowing modernization projects to successfully utilize the common shared infrastructure.

• Establish common and unambiguous business, product, and functional requirements that are testable and allocated to a specific release package (RP).

• Ensure the receiving organization is ready to support the infrastructure being transitioned.

• Modernized systems meeting the business needs of the IRS, enabling interoperability, and complying with the Enterprise Architecture and established engineering processes and procedures.

3.b Includes IT: ☐X Yes ☐ No NAICS: 541511, PSC: D306 3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value:

The current task order value is $87,183,607. The proposed modification is to add an (estimated) additional $3,790,216, for a new estimated total of $90,973,823. Refer to the IGCE supporting the modification for additional details.

4.a Identification of the exception to fair opportunity being used:

☐X FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A) – The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) – Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized.

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) – The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order ☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) – It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E) – For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

☐ FAR 16.505(a)(4) – The requirement is for an item peculiar to one manufacturer.

4.b Supporting rationale:

The proposed contractor’s unique qualifications and the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited as follows:

i. The follow-on TO was competed and awarded prior to the expiration of the current ISS TO, to allow time for ramp up and transition activities. However, upon the conclusion of the debriefings, the IRS received notification that one of the offerors submitted a protest to GAO, challenging the IRS’s award decision. The protest was submitted on the last allowable day in accordance with FAR Part 33. A stay of performance has been issued on the new TO award, however support will need to continue until GAO makes their decision. GAO has up to 100 days to make their final ruling. The current TO is due to expire July 15, 2019 which does not leave enough time to put a separate, sole source contract in place, receive the funding from the program offices and allow for the transfer of hundreds of contractor resources from one contract to another, without a potential work stoppage or severe disruption of services. This TO supports many IRS IT organizations and high visibility programs. These programs are essential to IRS’s infrastructure and ultimately the tax systems. Without continuous ISS services, the risk of an unsuccessful filing season increases significantly.

ii. The impact to the agency includes, but is not limited to, severe disruptions or work stoppages for the following high-visibility programs:

- The Return Review Program (RRP) application enhances the IRS capabilities to detect, resolve, and prevent criminal and civil non-compliance, thereby reducing issuance of fraudulent tax refunds,

- Customer Account Data Engine 2 (CADE2) the authoritative data source for financial reporting, legal, and operational purposes,

- Web Content Management System (WCMS) development, modernization and enhancement support - to increase customer satisfaction, improve government oversight, refresh the design, and update the technology of its Public User Portal (irs.gov)

- Support for JBOSS, Apache/Tomcat and the SiteMinder / CA Directory products including customization in support of both development and ongoing Production O&M

iii. Regarding the transfer of resources, this means to recertify the contractor resources Minimum Background Investigation (MBI), transfer their Government Furnished equipment (GFE) and transferring access to IRS applications and physical access to IRS sites.

Performing these transfers to a separate bridge contract could not be accomplished in the required timeframe to avoid a work stoppage or disruption of service.

iv. The current TO has already used the FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. This clause was used to allow for the award of the competed follow-on and allow for ramp-up activities. The competition experienced multiple delays, many to which were out of the Contracting Officer’s (CO) control (i.e. Government shutdown). However, given the latest circumstances and the very short turn-around time, extending the TO by 3 months would be best option for the agency and the programs supported by ISS. If GAO agrees with the agency in their final ruling, the full 3 months may not be needed, however, if the protest is upheld the IRS will need the full timeframe to allow for the next acquisition strategy.

v. This TO modification would be considered “out-of-scope” only to the extent of extending the period of performance. There are no changes to the actual technical requirements. This modification is to only extend the same level/type of requirements to accommodate GAO’s ruling.

vi. A Determination & Findings (D&F) will be completed in accordance with IRS procurement policy and submitted as part of the modification documentation to increase the TO ceiling.

5. A determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contracting Officer determines that the anticipated price(s) will be fair and reasonable based on a comparison of the proposed prices received with the current spend/burn rates of the TO;

also, a comparison of the proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate

(IGCE).

6.a Any other facts supporting this justification:

None.

6.b Attachments: ☐ Yes ☐X No

7. A statement of the actions, if any, the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies and services is made:

The follow-on acquisition was recently awarded on May 20, 2019 with an effective start date of July 16, 2019. The acquisition was issued against the GSA Alliant 2 GWAC.

The IRS completed the acquisition process in a timely fashion to allow for support to begin on the latest award, however, due to unforeseen circumstances of receiving a protest at the last minute leaves the IRS in a precarious position to continue support until a ruling can be made by GAO. While, no one can reasonably predict if a protest will be filed, the CO understands this possibility must be included in the estimated milestone schedule when making award to prevent the need for such sole source requests. A follow-on award should be made prior to the end of the last option period to adequately allow for transition or issues that may arise such as a protest. In “normal” circumstances, the FAR clause 52.217-8 would have been adequate to support the program until the protest was resolved.

8. Certifications and Approvals:

8.a Program Office Certification (Requiring Activity). I hereby certify that any supporting information and data provided (e.g., the Government’s minimum needs or requirements, or other rationale for the limited sources) and which form the basis for this justification for an exception to fair opportunity, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Don MacMillan Date:

Signature:

8.b Contracting Officer Certification and Approval. I certify this justification for an exception to fair opportunity is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the authorized contracting officer for this acquisition, I hereby approve the processing of this requirement based on the authority specified in 4.a above.

Name: Shontae Harley Date:

6. Additional Reviews and Approvals (As applicable):

9.a Bureau Chief Information Officer or Authorized Designee (for IT requirements that are over $5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification. (Note: The Bureau CIO may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to the Associate Bureau CIO(s).)

Name: Date:

Signature:

9.b Advocate for Competition (if over $700,000, but not exceeding $13.5 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification for an exception to fair opportunity and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the ordering activity’s Advocate for competition, I hereby approve this justification based on the authority specified in 4.a above.

Name: Date:

Signature:

9.c Head of the Procuring Activity or Authorized Designee (if over $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification for an exception to fair opportunity and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the head of the procuring activity or authorized designee, I hereby approve this justification based on the authority specified in 4.a above.

Name: Date:

Signature:

9.d Treasury Chief Information Officer (for IT requirements that are over $68 million). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification.

Name: Date:

Signature:

9.e Senior Procurement Executive (if over $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification for an exception to fair opportunity and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, as the senior procurement executive, I hereby approve this justification based on the authority specified in 4.a above.

Name: Date:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR

SF-1014- JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

I. General Instructions. Each Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity shall contain sufficient information and data to justify the proposed action, thereby be able to stand on its own.

This type of detail is critical in order to enable a reviewer and/or approver to clearly understand the requirement and the rationale for supporting the justification. Simply copying and pasting information from a vendor’s website or marketing literature fails to support the use of such justification. Market research performed by the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity should be used to support this document.

Given the majority of the information and data necessary to support this type of action resides with the Requiring Activity, they are the primary party responsible for completing this form.

However, the Requiring Activity shall seek assistance and input from the Contracting Activity/Contracting Officer (preferably in advance of submission of the procurement request).

It is also recommended the justification is not signed by the Requiring Activity until such time the Contracting Officer has had an opportunity to review, make necessary revisions and to include other necessary information or data to support the justification.

For Brand-name acquisitions keep in mind the justification is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name and that that the document approval requirements only apply to that portion. However, it does not mean that details regarding the overarching requirement (i.e.

in the instance where the brand name is only a portion of an overall requirement) aren’t to be included in the document.

In the event of conflict between this form and applicable regulatory coverage (i.e. FAR and DTAR), the more stringent requirement shall be followed.

If the requirement involves classified or sensitive information ensure the proper steps are taken to protect the information (e.g. labeling and marking).

Prior to distribution for signature: (i) retain only those signature blocks applicable to the dollar value of the items covered by this justification, (ii) delete all green text (which are examples), and (iii) consider converting the document to .pdf to support electronic signature and ease of retention.

The fields within this form are fluid and will change based upon input, therefore individuals completing this form need to be mindful of formatting prior to converting the document to pdf and submitting it for signature.

II. Field specific instructions.

1. Identification of the requiring activity and the contracting activity. Provide the name of the name of the actual requiring activity (e.g. Treasury’s Washington, DC Office – Central IT Division). Provide the name of the contracting agency and the name of the actual contracting activity (e.g. BFS’ West Virginia Office – Contracting Division for IT).

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved. Describe the type of action being issued (e.g. new award, contract modification or brand name). Identify the contemplated contract type (e.g. firm fixed price). If known, include period of performance. Also, when processing a class justification, include the effective period the justification will be in effect.

If modifying a contract or order thereby requiring a justification or a modification to the initial justification then ensure to include the contract no., task/delivery order number (if applicable), proposed contract modification number, nature of why the modification is required and, if applicable, a copy of the initial justification.

If brand name, ensure to mention this justification is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name.

Section 2.b Name of vendor. If applicable, insert the name of proposed vendor. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.c Requisition Number. If known, include the requisition number. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.d Bridge contract. Check the applicable box. See DTAP 1017.70 for a definition of bridge contract and other requirements.

Section 2.e Brand name. Check the applicable box.

3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs. Provide a clear, concise description of the supplies or services to be procured. Include a statement regarding the delivery schedule and/or the period of performance, inclusive of all option periods and award terms. If applicable, state the associated contract line or subline items the supplies or services are being procured against. For supplies, include details such quantity and a brief description of the items (e.g. twelve (12) laptops).

For brand name, provide the name of the brand, model number and other specific details associated with the brand name item(s) being procured; name(s) of known sources that can provide the brand name.

For modification describe the purpose of modification, including details such as proposed extension to the period of performance as well as the purpose of and type of the contract.

3.b Includes IT. Check the applicable box. If, yes is selected then include the NAICS and PSC

3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value. Provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the anticipated award, inclusive of all options, award terms and any other monetary incentives. If applicable, provide separately for each option, award term and other monetary incentive a general description (e.g. option period 1 – April x, 201x through March x, 201x) and the associated individual dollar amount. These separate dollar amounts should add up to the total estimated dollar value; however if there is a difference then provide a discussion as to why they don’t.

For brand name also provide the IGCE/ estimated dollar value of the portion of the order, inclusive of all options, award terms and other monetary incentives, that is brand name.

For modifications provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the proposed modification, the current total dollar value of the contract.

4.a Identification of the exception to fair opportunity being used. Check the applicable exception being used for this justification.

4.b Supporting rationale. Provide a clear and concise description of the rationale for the use of the authority being cited above, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. The following provides additional insight for purposes of completing this field:

• FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A) Describe the nature or circumstances of the urgency surrounding the agency’s need; how any follow-on work will be competed or how such urgency will be mitigated in the future; describe the extent and impact of the unacceptable delay (e.g.

quantitative data, dollars that would be lost, the impact to schedule) if fair opportunity was provided. Provide supporting rationale and a concise description of the extent, nature, and impact of the potential harm to the Government.

• FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) Describe what makes this contractor the only responsible source.

For example, (i) does the proposed contractor have facilities or equipment that are specialized or unique that are vital to the effort?; (ii) Is the proposed contractor the only one that can meet critical schedule(s) required by the Government?; (iii) Does the proposed contractor have prior experience or expertise of a highly specialized nature that is vital to the effort?; (iv) Does the contractor have an exclusive licensing agreement?. Fully explain why any other supply or service provided by another vendor will not satisfy the Government’s need. Also, describe any type of market survey and analysis efforts conducted to support this conclusion.

• FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) If the logical follow-on exception is used, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value). Provide the estimated cost and/or time savings that will result from the non-competitive award, and explain the basis for the estimate.

• FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) If the satisfy a minimum guarantee exception is used, specify the amount of that guarantee, and, if applicable, the amount that has been ordered to date.

Discuss why the minimum was not otherwise met and any actions the Government took to meet that minimum.

• FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E) If the statute exception is used, cite the statute along the specific language from the statute and how it applies to this order.

• FAR 16.505(a)(4) State the brand name product’s unique attributes (be specific and use technical terms, if necessary), provide an explanation of the proposed brand name item(s) unique qualifications and why no other similar product will suffice, including why other companies’ similar products lacking the particular feature do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs; why (if applicable) the nature of the acquisition requires the use of the brand name product. Provide an estimate of the cost and/or delay the Government would incur if other than the brand name item is used for this requirement.

Do not simply take information from a vendor’s website or other such marketing information to use as the basis as to why they are unique. Also, describe any type of market survey and analysis efforts conducted to support this conclusion.

5. A determination that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable.

Provide a clear and complete description of the contracting officer’s determination that the anticipated cost or pricing the Government will be fair and reasonable. This might include things, such as consideration of commercial pricelists or prior acquisition history.

6.a Any other facts supporting this justification. Additional examples beyond those provided in the form itself are:

• If the justification is based on an urgent and compelling need, there may be additional data or estimated costs that further support the extent and nature of the harm to the government in delay in award will cause or

• If the justification is based on a need to purchase a patented or copyrighted product that has not been licensed for resale obtain some type of documentation from the vendor demonstrating they are intellectual property holder and there are no authorized resellers.

6.b Attachments. Check the applicable box. Examples of attachments might be a copy of the IGCE, certification from the vendor stating they are other only authorized reseller of the particular item or are the patent holder of the item.

7. A statement of the actions, if any, the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies and services is made. Describe actions taken, or that may be taken, to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required (e.g. overcoming challenges to restrictive data markings, data rights, preparation of a performance based work statement). If planning or in the midst of a competition, include information regarding this action (e.g. estimated date when the competitive procurement will occur or award to be made). Refer to the language in green text for an example.

8. and 9. Certifications, Reviews and Approvals. Each review must be preceded by lower level approval(s), e.g., over $68 million all approvals are required. IN NO CASE SHALL AN

INDIVIDUAL SIGN MORE THAN ONE APPROVAL LEVEL.

For justifications that include the purchase of Information Technology (IT) the following apply:

• The IT signature reflects only the portion of the acquisition that is IT. This can be important when dealing with an acquisition where IT does not represent the predominate value of the acquisition (i.e. therefore it is not assigned an IT PSC code (see the Treasury IT Acquisition Tracker).

• The Bureau Chief Information Officer (CIO) may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to Associate Bureau CIO(s).

Refer to the Bureau supplement to the DTAP to determine if the Bureau CIO has indeed delegated their authority.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C) uses the terms “head of the procuring activity” which has the same meaning as head of the contracting activity (HCA).

https://thegreen.treas.gov/do/ope/ITAcqTracker/Pages/Treasury-IT-Acquisition-Tracker---Home.aspx https://thegreen.treas.gov/do/ope/ITAcqTracker/Pages/Treasury-IT-Acquisition-Tracker---Home.aspx

A supplemental justification is required if any of the following revisions occur between approval of the original justification and actual award of the contract or modification of the award: an increase in dollar value beyond the authority approved in the justification; a change in the competitive strategy that further reduces competition; or any type of change in requirement that affects the basis of the justification.

Additional. Tracking No.: This field is completed as prescribed by Bureau procedures.