20210805 Sole Source Justification (Redacted).pdf

Contractor: Moseley Architects Program/Equipment: TARC Visitor’s Center Type C A-E Services

CUI

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR PART 13 SOLICITING FROM A SINGLE SOURCE

Program/Equipment: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Type C Services in Support of the Visitor’s Center Construction at the Herbert R. Temple Jr. Army National Guard Readiness Center (TARC) in Arlington, Virginia

Authority: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.106-1(b)(1), Soliciting from a Single Source Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.

Amount: Estimated at $

Prepared by: Michael Dixon (703) 607-0163 Contract Specialist 05-AUG-2021 michael.d.dixon82.civ@mail.mil

Contracting Officer: Kirk Swiantek (586) 239-4773 Contracting Officer 05-AUG-2021 kirk.swiantek@us.af.mil

Technical: Kimberly Kensrud (703) 607-7834 Facility Engineer 05-AUG-2021 kimberly.m.kensrud.civ@mail.mil

Controlled by: National Guard Bureau Controlled by: NGB-AQ-R CUI Category: General Procurement and Acquisition Limited Dissemination Control: FED ONLY POC: Michael Dixon, michael.d.dixon82.civ@mail.mil

FAR Part 13 Justification Review Document Soliciting From a Single Source

1. Contracting Activity: National Guard Bureau (NGB), Construction and Architect- Engineer (A-E) Division (AQ-R), 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22204-1373.

2. Description of Action: NGB, Facility Management Office (CSO-F), requests a sole source contract award with Moseley Architects (CAGE: 9W741). The Government projects award for 2021; Fiscal Year 2021 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) funds will be used. An acquisition plan is not required because this procurement does not meet the threshold at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 207.103(d)(i)(B).

3. Description of Services: This is an Architect-Engineer (A-E) requirement to perform Type C services in support of the construction of the Visitor’s Center building at the Herbert R. Temple Jr. Army National Guard Readiness Center (TARC) at 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The construction contract is scheduled for an early September 2021 award. The period of performance of this A-E action will mirror the construction contract award (reference solicitation W9133L-21-B-4000) of 425 calendar days after issuance of the notice to proceed. There are no options required for this acquisition. The independent government estimate for this contract is $ .

Type C services include documenting and providing answers to Contractor’s requests for information (post award), review of submittals, attendance and records at job progress meetings, review of lab results, preparation of as-built drawings, multiple site visits to inspect the progress and quality of construction to ensure the construction contractor is following the approved design.

4. Authority Cited: 41 U.S. Code § 1901, as implemented by FAR 13.106-1(b)(1), Soliciting from a Single Source Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: This requirement is a follow-on action to Moseley Architects. The requirement was previously negotiated and awarded by another agency, the Virginia Department of Military Affairs, in September 2019. It included Type A, B, and C services for the design of the TARC Visitor’s Center. Type A services included the basis of design (specifically the design intent), the development of the project concept, and associated site investigations. The Type B services included the design narrative and the development of the construction documents. The Type C services were never completed under this contract since the initial construction contract was not funded at the time. It was decided to have NGB-AQ oversee the Construction and Architect and Engineering Contracts instead of the VA Department of Military Affairs.

Since Moseley Architects designed and certified the drawings and specifications, it is economical and efficient to award the Type C services as a sole source follow-on contract. There would be a substantial duplication of cost that would not be expected to be recovered through a new competition for another A-E firm to engage and familiarize themselves with this project along assuming responsibility for Moseley’s Plans and Designs. This duplication of cost is estimated to be approximately 20% of the estimated contract value of $ (approximately $ ). This duplication is estimated since the in-house disciplines (to include the Project Manager, Project Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineers, Structural Engineers, etc.) would each need to study and investigate the prior A-E submittals. This $ is approximately double the amount for the in-house disciplines listed in the Independent Government Estimate. The duplication of costs also include the cost to post a new A-E synopsis and conduct a new evaluation of the most highly qualified vendor which can take months of work for several Government employees to include a Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist, Selection Board members, a Selection Board Chairperson, and a Contract Attorney. These positions combined can easily account for at least $ worth of labor hours (assuming 120 hours for a Contract Specialist, 40 hours for a Contracting Officer, 80 hours for a Selection Board Chairperson, 40 hours for three (3) members of a Selection Board, and 10 hours for a Contract Attorney, all at an conservative average of $ ). In addition to the duplication of costs, the time associated with a new A-E and a new contract acquisition would significantly influence and delay the actual construction of the Visitor’s Center, which is scheduled to start in September of 2021.

The delay could potentially take six months, which would add significant cost and schedule risk to the NGB.

There is also tremendous performance and liability risk associated with another A-E firm taking over the Type C services for a project that was already certified. Having the original designer, Moseley Architects, on contract to perform the construction phase services is necessary for the Government to ensure responsible answers to the following questions: Is the constructed facility based on the design both maintainable and operable? Do the plans reflect the true conditions and are the plans clear, sufficiently detailed, accurate and coordinated? Is the design constructible and have minimal errors? Is the A-E responsive in correcting errors and omissions of the engineering services? Can the A-E perform timely and accurate review of shop drawings and submittals? Is the A-E responsive in providing technical assistance as required by the contract? An award to a new A-E other than Moseley Architects would increase the risk associated with these issues and potentially affect the Government’s rights under FAR 52.236-23, Responsibility of the Architect-Engineer Contractor, if another A-E were to represent or attempt to revise the current drawings and/or specifications. This clauses states that the “Contractor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by the Contractor”. However, if a new A-E were to make recommendations during the Type C services to revise or deviate from the original drawings or specifications, any liability resulting from those changes could not be attributed to the original A-E. This could potentially create a dangerous and complicated scenario if the Government needed to hold the responsible A-E party liable for any errors or deficiencies in the designs, drawings, and/or specifications.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: No efforts were made to obtain competition for this one-time requirement due to the rationale described in paragraph 5. This Justification Document will be made public through the Government Point of Entry

7. Actions to Increase Competition: No actions were taken to increase competition since this is a one-time requirement following on to a previously competed project.

8. Market Research: Market research was conducted by the contracting office on 20 July 2021. It included a detailed search in the Small Business Administration (SBA) Dynamic Business Search website as well as a search of the AbilityOne website. The research was concluded as follows: There are 7,090 active vendors under NAICS 541330, located in DC, Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia. A further breakout of the different business sizes revealed the following socio-economic business categories: 515 Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone firms, 899 8(a) firms, 162 Women- Owned Small Businesses, 1,381 Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and 3,965 Small Disadvantaged Businesses. Based on these findings it was determined that there are many large and small businesses, to include vendors of all socio-economic categories, capable of fulfilling this need for the Government. Unfortunately, all firms, other than Moseley Architects, would likely carry more cost and performance risk than Moseley Architects. Since Moseley Architects previously completed the Type A and A services which included the basis of design (specifically the design intent), and the development of the project concept, and associated site investigations. Along with the Type B services which included the design narrative and the development of the construction documents for the forthcoming construction project, a Justification and Approval (J&A)* document will be completed with the recommendation to award a sole source contract to Moseley Architects. The authority will be issued under 10 U.S. Code § 2304(c)(1), Only one responsible source and no other services will satisfy agency requirements. This J&A will illustrate that it is economically feasible and efficient to award the Type C services as a follow-on to the A-E that completed the Type A and Type B services. An award to any other contractor would result in substantial duplication of cost and added performance risk since that new A-E would not be familiar with the design of the Visitor’s Center.”

*Note: Due to the size of the acquisition (under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold), the market research should have used the term “Justification Document” versus “Justification and Approval” and the authority should have been identified as “41 U.S.

Code § 1901, as implemented by FAR 13.106(b)(1), Soliciting from a Single Source Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold”.

9. Interested Sources: A listing of interested sources was not solicited or received during the market research phase of this acquisition.

10. Other Facts: The previous contract for the Type A, B, and C services awarded to Moseley Architects was issued by the VA Department of Military Affairs, as Contract VAFM 2019, Project Order 3, Project Code 19-0007. It was awarded on September

20, 2019 in the amount of $240,423.00. Although Type A and B services were completed the construction contract was never awarded. It was determined that NGB- AQ-R should solicit the construction project. The Type C services portion of the VAFM 2019 contract was terminated.

11. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Typed Name: Kimberly Kensrud Signature:

Title: Facility Engineer Date: 05-AUG-2021

12. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Typed Name: Kimberly Kensrud Signature:

Title: Facility Engineer Date: 05-AUG-2021

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost or price to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

This determination will be made using the following: Cost Analysis Price Analysis

Should Cost IGE Audit: Other

As part of this basis, certified cost or pricing data:

will be required.

will not be required and the following exception applies (FAR 15.403):

Prices that will be agreed upon are based on adequate price competition.

Prices that will be agreed upon are based on prices set by law or regulation.

A commercial item is being acquired.

A waiver has been granted by the head of the contracting activity (HCA) in accordance with DFARS PGI 215.403-1.

The contract action is a modification to a contract or subcontract for commercial item(s).

The estimated cost of the contract action is less than the threshold for certified cost or pricing data.

Typed Name: Kirk Swiantek Signature:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: 05-AUG-2021

KENSRUD.KIMBERLY.

MOLNAR.1384091780

Digitally signed by

KENSRUD.KIMBERLY.MOLNAR.138409178

Date: 2021.08.05 16:23:54 -04'00'

KENSRUD.KIMBERLY.M

OLNAR.1384091780

Digitally signed by

KENSRUD.KIMBERLY.MOLNAR.1384091780

Date: 2021.08.05 16:24:16 -04'00'

SWIANTEK.KIRK.MA

TTHEW.1098659702

Digitally signed by

SWIANTEK.KIRK.MATTHEW.10986597

Date: 2021.08.05 16:30:46 -04'00'

14. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Typed Name: Kirk Swiantek Signature:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: 05-AUG-2021

SWIANTEK.KIRK.MAT

THEW.1098659702

Digitally signed by

SWIANTEK.KIRK.MATTHEW.1098659702

Date: 2021.08.05 16:31:22 -04'00'