26-JA-FECON-0014_Redacted.pdf

January 2025

J&A No. 26-JA-FECON-0014

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

1. AGENCY AND CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: This is a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity. The requiring activity is the Commander Fleet Activities Okinawa (CFAO);

the contracting activity is the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Far East (NAVFAC FE), Resident Officer in Charge of Construction (ROICC) Okinawa, Japan.

2. NATURE AND/OR DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION BEING APPROVED: This is a limited source action to be awarded as a modification of an existing order to American Engineering Corporation (AEC) under contract number N4008421D0070, task order N4008424F4681, WBH164 DBB Critical Power Upgrade, Data Center Bldg 1710, White Beach.

The placement of a firm, fixed price order is anticipated.

3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED SUPPLIES/SERVICES: The proposed acquisition is to modernize the backup power switchgear control system serving the critical assets at Building 1710. It is intended to replace the obsolete switchgear controls with current-generation hardware to include the provision of a temporary generator, full software programming, system commissioning, customer training, and material disposal. The additional work would extend the construction completion date by 212 calendar days to accommodate the new system design, material procurement, programming, commissioning, and witness testing. The estimated cost for this work is approximately $ and Fiscal Year 2026 Operations & Maintenance, Navy (O&MN) funds would be used. As a result, the task order price will increase from $ to $ .

4. IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY: The statutory authority which permits exception to fair opportunity to be considered for each order over the micro-purchase threshold issued under a multiple award contract is 10 U.S.C. 3406(c), as implemented by FAR 16.507-6(b):

(1) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

(2) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized.

(3) 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.

(4) It is necessary to place the order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

(5) For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that purchase be made from a specified source.

(6) The order satisfies one of the exceptions permitting the use of other than full and open competition listed in 6.103 (10 U.S.C. 3406(c)(5)).

5. RATIONALE/EXPLANATION TO SUPPORT CITED AUTHORITY:

This task order modification must be awarded to the incumbent contractor, AEC, in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an existing task order. An exception to fair opportunity is required as this additional work is considered out of scope because it can be accomplished as a stand-alone requirement. However, based on the following reasons, it was determined that sole sourcing this to the incumbent is in the best interest of the Government:

(a) Recency of the previous competitive order and the number of times this exception has been used:

All Okinawa DB/DBB MACC holders were given a fair opportunity to compete for the original task order, which was awarded on 27 August 2024 and is currently at 80% completion. The incumbent is currently fully mobilized on the same location of this proposed project. This is the first time this exception to fair opportunity has been used for this requirement.

(b) Why the specific requirement continues:

During live testing conducted on 8-9 October 2025, the requirement was confirmed because the existing backup power switchgear control system was found to have a severely worn and malfunctioning U2 magnetic contactor. Further engineering review confirmed that the existing switchgear’s control components, specifically the electronic load controller (ELC) and human-machine interface (HMI) hardware, are obsolete, unserviceable, and no longer supported by the manufacturer, and no equivalent replacement parts exist to maintain the current configurations. If left unaddressed, the system upgrades completed through the original scope of the task order will be jeopardized. Additionally, a failure of the switchgear controls during a utility outage would cause an immediate loss of power to support the facility’s critical operational assets, rendering the entire backup power framework unstable.

(c) Why it would be of benefit to the Government for the specified contractor to continue this work:

Continuing the additional work with the incumbent (AEC) is highly beneficial to the Government because they are currently mobilized on-site with the necessary equipment, technical personnel, and direct, intimate knowledge of the facility's electrical distribution system and the protocols and sequences required to interface the backup power systems. AEC can immediately design, procure, program, commission, and test the switchgear controls together with the newly installed secondary generator without coordination delays. Most importantly, utilizing AEC minimizes integration risks and ensures a single point of accountability for the entire emergency power system. Introducing a different contractor to modify the switchgear controls that interface directly into the existing work by AEC would create overlapping technical responsibilities. In the event of a system failure, this overlap would inevitably lead to complex warranty disputes, and potentially voiding manufacturer warranties. Such disputes would severely delay critical diagnostics and repairs, directly prolonging the period during which the facility is left without backup power, thereby extending the data center’s vulnerability to catastrophic power loss.

(d) Why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical:

The relationship is logical in terms of scope and performance. The original scope is to design a secondary electrical power backup generation system to augment the existing backup generator at Bldg 1710. The additional work is to modernize the switchgear control system, which functions as the centralized command and control of the entire emergency power framework. As such, replacing the switchgear control system is intrinsically linked to the successful completion and certification of the entire backup power system which includes the secondary generator designed and installed by AEC. Since AEC is already actively configuring the manufacturer’s proprietary systems for the secondary generator, introducing a second contractor to modify the same switchgear controls introduces critical compatibility and software integration risks.

(e) Award to any other source would likely result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition:

Awarding this requirement to another source would result in substantial duplication of costs that will not be recovered through competition. A new contractor would require redundant mobilization costs and administrative overhead, security vetting of personnel, site familiarization, and an extensive engineering review of AEC’s recent generator installation before they could safely work on the primary backup system. Furthermore, the potential cost of voided warranties and future integration failures between two different contractors' work far outweigh any marginal price reduction that might be achieved through a separate solicitation.

6. FAIR AND REASONABLE COST DETERMINATION: The Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government of the supplies/services covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable prior to the execution of the task order modification. This determination will be based on a technical evaluation of the contractor’s proposal, comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), and comparison with historical pricing for similar procurements as prescribed in FAR 15.404-1.

7. ANY OTHER FACT SUPPORTING THE JUSTIFICATION: None.

8. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION: For future requirements of this nature, the requiring activity will make every effort to conduct thorough early-stage facility audits during the planning phases of future MACC task orders to ensure that complete utility and control system requirements are identified and integrated into the initial competitive solicitations, thereby maximizing fair opportunity.

9. TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS/FUNCTIONAL LEAD CERTIFICATION

I declare that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this justification is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature: Phone: Date ______________

Name/Title: NAVFAC Far East ROICC Okinawa

10. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW

I have reviewed and determined this Justification is legally sufficient.

Name/Title: , NAVFAC Far East

11. CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

Upon the basis of the above justification, I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to best of my knowledge and belief and hereby approve the Exception to Fair Opportunity for the proposed procurement(s) described herein using pursuant to the 10 U.S.C. 3406(c), as implemented by FAR 16.507-6(b)(3):

ECHELON IV CHIEF OF CONTRACTING OFFICE APPROVAL

Name/Title: Chief of the Contracting Office, NAVFAC Far East

21-Aug-2026