26QE094_JA_091626_.pdf

CUI

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

DEPARTMENT OF WAR EDUCATION ACTIVITY

JUSTIFICATION

For

SOLE SOURCE OR BRAND NAME, FAR PART 12 > SAT and < $9M

1. Contracting Agency : Department of War Education Activity (DoWEA), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400

2. Description of Action

A firm fixed price contract is planned with a total estimated value of using Simplified Acquisition Procedures under FAR Overhaul Part 12.201-1. The period of performance is for a 12-month base period. FY27 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) funds are available for the in the estimated amount of

3. Description of Supplies and Services Required to Meet the Need

The Department of War Education Activity (DoWEA) requires a follow-on contract in support of an ongoing Do No Harm audit. The Audit is in the process of being finalized and further action will be needed by DoWEA to address the findings of the Audit. DoWEA seeks to achieve a comprehensive, enterprise-wide transformation that operationalizes the findings of the Do No Harm Audit into actionable, measurable, and sustainable practices in accordance with FAR Part 37 performance-based service expectations. This effort requires the Contractor to deliver integrated action plans, aligned standards, evidence-based practices, and enforceable policies that collectively mitigate identified risks while promoting consistency, accountability, and operational integrity. Successful execution will result in cohesive frameworks that align curriculum, instruction, and operations with leadership priorities, supported by clear guidance, stakeholder engagement, and validated best practices.

4. Authority

41 U.S.C. 1901 & 1903 and FAR 12.102(b)

5. Demonstration of Contractor’s Unique Qualifications or Nature of Acquisition Requiring the Authority Cited

The Do No Harm Audit was awarded under task order 47QFHA25F0005 via the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD-P&R). The task order required the performance of an independent third-party audit of curriculum, professional development, school discipline, student counseling, special education programs, student/parent/faculty policies, and academic standards to ensure compliance with Executive Order 14190 and other relevant guidelines. A follow-on contract represents the most appropriate acquisition strategy because the requirement is a continuation and expansion of a highly specialized, ongoing independent review effort that requires significant institutional knowledge, continuity of methodology, and consistency in analytical findings. The requirement demands expertise in educational policy, curriculum evaluation, classical education principles, the science of learning, federal education requirements, compliance auditing, executive branch policies, and DoW educational systems.

The incumbent contractor has already developed a detailed understanding of the organization’s educational framework, governance structure, policies, and academic programs. Replacing the contractor would require substantial time for knowledge transfer and familiarization before meaningful analysis could begin. Maintaining the same audit team throughout subsequent phases ensures consistency in evidentiary evaluation, interpretation of findings, and application of audit standards. This allows leadership to compare progress over time using a stable analytical framework and enables immediate continuation of work without the delays.

6. Effort to Obtain Competition

While other firms may possess general expertise in educational assessments and compliance reviews, they do not possess the same familiarity with the specific audit framework, supporting documentation, prior findings, stakeholder inputs, and institutional context developed during the performance of the current contract. Awarding the requirement to a different contractor would require significant duplication of effort, including the review and validation of previously assessed materials, redevelopment of analytical baselines, and re-establishment of relationships and understanding necessary to perform an effective independent assessment. Such duplication would increase costs, extend performance timelines, and create the potential for inconsistent methodologies and findings.

The Government considered the potential benefits of conducting a new competition; however, due to the highly specialized nature of the requirement and the need for continuity between the initial audit effort and the follow-on assessment, a competitive procurement would not provide sufficient benefit to offset the additional cost, schedule delays, and performance risk associated with transitioning the work to a new contractor. Accordingly, this follow-on requirement is being pursued on a noncompetitive basis to continue the effort without disruption, leverage the substantial knowledge acquired during performance of the original competitively awarded contract, and provide consistent, reliable, and timely support to meet the Government's objectives.

7. Fair and Reasonable Determination

The contracting officer has determined the anticipated costs will be fair and reasonable based on the following Market Research information:

8. Market Research: Market research confirmed that while there are firms capable of performing educational assessments or compliance reviews, the Government's requirement extends beyond a general educational program review. Successful performance requires a comprehensive understanding of the contractor's previously completed audit activities, methodologies, data collection processes, analytical framework, findings, recommendations, stakeholder engagements, and supporting documentation developed during performance of the current contract.

The market research determined that a newly selected contractor would be required to expend significant effort to obtain familiarity with previously reviewed curriculum materials, professional development programs, academic standards, student performance metrics, discipline data, counseling and special education programs, stakeholder feedback, policy reviews, and prior audit conclusions before meaningful work could begin. This would result in substantial duplication of effort, increased costs, schedule delays, and the potential for inconsistent methodologies and findings.

The Government concluded that although other firms may possess relevant educational consulting expertise, no other source could provide the required continuity of analysis, historical knowledge, and immediate capability necessary to meet program objectives without incurring unacceptable duplication of cost and delay. Accordingly, the market research supports the determination that a follow-on award to the incumbent contractor is the approach that best satisfies the Government's needs.

9. Other Supporting Facts

Although the Government can describe the general objectives of the requirement, it is not possible to develop specifications, statements of work, or purchase descriptions that fully capture the institutional knowledge, analytical framework, and historical context developed through performance of the existing contract.

The follow-on effort requires the contractor to build upon prior reviews of curriculum, professional development initiatives, student discipline programs, counseling and special education services, academic standards, and policy assessments. The value of the requirement is derived not only from the performance of the review itself, but also from the contractor's familiarity with previously evaluated materials, methodologies, findings, and recommendations. A new contractor would be required to replicate significant portions of prior work to establish the same baseline understanding, resulting in unnecessary duplication of effort and increased costs to the Government.

10. Interested Sources

None

11. Effort to remove barriers to/increase competition

The Government recognizes the importance of maximizing competition whenever practicable and has evaluated opportunities to reduce reliance on incumbent-specific knowledge for future acquisitions.

During performance of the anticipated follow-on contract, the Government will take steps to capture knowledge, standardize methodologies, and document work products to facilitate future competition to the maximum extent practicable.

CERTIFICATION

In accordance with FAR 6.104(b), I certify this justification completely and accurately conveys the Government’s minimum needs or requirements and the rational for other than full and open competition, including supporting data, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Technical Lead

Contracting Officer (Required): In accordance with 6.104-1(a)(12), I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. In addition, I hereby determine that entering into a sole source contract with AES, LLC will result in a price that will be fair and reasonable to the Government.

Alim Koroma Contracting Officer

APPROVAL

Approval is granted subject to the availability of funds and provided that the products/ services described herein have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Contracting Officer (Per DFARS 206.104-72, approval required for actions up to $10M)

Alim Koroma Contracting Officer