93_111378_Ecoscan_Justification.pdf

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 1 of 7 June 2024

Sole Source CONTRACT Filing Justification Template Division or Region: Aquatics Date: July 14, 2026 Solicitation Number: 93-111378 Company Name: Van Wagenen Robert Farel dba Ecoscan Resource Data, Inc.

Sub-object good/services will be charged once approved: 39R Funding Source (federal/state/local): State Vendor FIN/TIN (Federal ID#/ Taxpayer ID#): 94-2815734

Use the following justification template for preparing to file sole source contracts in the Sole Source Contracts Database (SSCD). Once completed, copy and paste the answers into the corresponding SSCD question and answer fields. You will also need to include a copy of this completed form in the documents you post to your agency website and in WEBS.

What is a sole source contract?

"Sole source" means a contractor providing goods or services of such a unique nature or sole availability that the contractor is clearly and justifiably the only practicable source to provide the goods or services. (RCW 39.26.010)

Unique qualifications or services are those which are highly specialized or one-of-a-kind.

Other factors which may be considered include past performance, cost-effectiveness (learning curve), and/or follow-up nature of the required goods and/or services. Past performance alone does not provide adequate justification for a sole source contract. Time constraints may be considered as a contributing factor in a sole source justification, however will not be on its own a sufficient justification.

Why is a sole source justification required?

The State of Washington, by policy and law, believes competition is the best strategy to obtain the best value for the goods and services it purchases, and to ensure that all interested vendors have a fair and transparent opportunity to sell goods and services to the state.

A sole source contract does not benefit from competition. Thus the state, through RCW 39.26.010, has determined it is important to evaluate whether the conditions, costs and risks related to the proposal of a sole source contract truly outweigh forgoing the benefits of a competitive contract.

Providing compelling answers to the following questions will facilitate DES’ evaluation.

https://sscd.des.wa.gov/Logon/Logon.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f https://sscd.des.wa.gov/Logon/Logon.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f https://pr-webs-customer.des.wa.gov/

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 2 of 7

Specific Problem or Need

• What is the business need or problem that requires this contract?

The business need is up-to-date floating kelp data is necessary to fulfill DNR’s legal obligations, which include supporting the Washington Statewide Kelp and Eelgrass Health and Conservation Plan (RCW 79.135.440). Additionally, this data is needed to provide support to other state, federal and local governments and to fulfill commitments to, the Puget Sound Partnership, specifically to produce a Floating Kelp Bed Area Indicator as part of the Puget Sound Vital Signs. This is a continuation of previous kelp data surveys previously performed where consistency of data on an ongoing basis is critical for program needs.

Sole Source Criteria

• Describe the unique features, qualifications, abilities or expertise of the contractor proposed for this sole source contract.

Van Wagenen Robert Farel dba Ecoscan Resource Data, Inc. has the specialized skills to hand-digitize floating kelp canopies from aerial imagery. This contractor has 36 years of experience with this exact methodology. Since mapping kelp canopies is an interpretive science, it is imperative that the same entity continues to create these maps. No one else has experience with the specific methods used by this contractor, as the contractor developed the methods in-house and has used them consistently over the past three decades.

• What kind of market research did the agency conduct to conclude that alternative sources were inappropriate or unavailable? Provide a narrative description of the agency’s due diligence in determining the basis for the sole source contract, including methods used by the agency to conduct a review of available sources. Use DES’ Market Research Template if assistance is needed.

1) DNR reviewed past solicitations. For this research, a sole source contract has been used since at least 2001 due to the unique nature of how the work must be performed.

2) An internet search was conducted. Terms used included “kelp mapping contract”, “nearshore mapping contract”. No alternative vendors were found who could meet DNR’s business needs.

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 3 of 7

3) Database searches were conducted. This included a search of DES’ Statewide Contracts, using search terms used: “kelp”, “kelp mapping”, “nearshore mapping", "aerial imagery”. WEBS searching for vendors, search terms used “mapping”, “aerial”, “imagery”, “kelp”, “vegetation”. DNR also reviewed Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprises (OMWBE)’s Directory of Certified Businesses with same search terms as above and no other vendors were discovered who could meet the need.

• As part of the market research requirements, include a list of statewide contracts reviewed and/or businesses contacted, date of contact, method of contact (telephone, mail, e-mail, other), and documentation demonstrating an explanation of why those businesses could not or would not, under any circumstances, perform the contract; or an explanation of why the agency has determined that no businesses other than the prospective contractor can perform the contract.

No DES Statewide Contract was identified that covered the work for this project. DNR also conducted internet research, searched OMWBE’s Directory of Certified Businesses and WEBS. No other vendors were located that could meet DNR’s need based on the nature of the work, the type of surveying required, and the type of research required as this is a specialized field of study and specific equipment needs to be used to provide consistent data that meets the program need.

• Per the Supplier Diversity Policy, DES-090-06: was this purchase included in the agency’s forecasted needs report?

Yes.

• Describe what targeted industry outreach was completed to locate small and/or veteran-owned businesses to meet the agency’s need?

DNR searched the OMWBE’s Directory of Certified Businesses and did not find any businesses that had the experience or knowledge to perform the work.

• What considerations were given to unbundling the goods and/or services in this contract, which would provide opportunities for Washington small, diverse, and/or veteran-owned businesses. Provide a summary of your agency’s unbundling analysis for this contract.

This contract integrates data collection analysis and reporting of a specific nature such that having multiple entities doing the work would create inconstancies in data provided and it would be difficult to determine who would do the analysis

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 4 of 7 of all the data in a way that meets the program needs. Thus, it is not feasible to unbundle goods and/or services.

• Provide a detailed and compelling description that includes quantification of the costs and risks mitigated by contracting with this contractor (i.e. learning curve, follow-up nature).

Successful long-term monitoring depends on consistency of the methods used to perform this research and the analysis of the data collected. Consistency is especially important in the field of aerial photography interpretation, which tends to have observer effects because it is an interpretive science. This contractor has completed kelp mapping for DNR since 1989. This experience maximizes DNR’s potential for getting a high quality and consistent product for a predictable and consistent cost.

In addition to producing high quality data that is highly consistent with previous years’ methods, this contractor’s expertise in this particular scientific field leads to minimal learning curve or start-up costs. Other contractors would need to familiarize themselves first with the mapping methods and then the near-shore environment, which would increase costs substantially.

Contracting with Van Wagenen Robert Farel dba Ecoscan Resource Data, Inc. also mitigates the risk of false and/or incorrect data being included in the statewide Floating Kelp Vital Sign Bed Area Indicator. This indicator is included in the Puget Sound Partnership’s Vital Signs program. It is used to identify locations where floating kelp losses have occurred and to inform management decisions regarding mitigation, protection, and restoration activities. Therefore, the production of a consistent, legacy data product mitigates potential management risks associated with inappropriate lack of action or instigation of action that could occur if this project was completed by a less-experienced vendor or a vendor also contending with a steep learning curve.

• Is the agency proposing this sole source contract because of special circumstances such as confidential investigations, copyright restrictions, etc.? If so, please describe.

No.

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 5 of 7

• Is the agency proposing this sole source contract because of unavoidable, critical time delays or issues that prevented the agency from completing this acquisition using a competitive process? If so, please describe. For example, if time constraints are applicable, identify when the agency was on notice of the need for the goods and/or service, the entity that imposed the constraints, explain the authority of that entity to impose them, and provide the timelines within which work must be accomplished.

No.

• What are the consequences of not having this sole source filing approved?

Describe in detail the impact to the agency and to services it provides if this sole source filing is not approved.

If this sole source filing is not approved, DNR will not fulfill its commitment for environmental monitoring of kelp canopies in a way that provides consistent, accurate and ongoing data collection and analysis in this specialized field of science. DNR’s kelp monitoring role and the importance of the data to resource management are detailed in the Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan (https://nwstraits.org/media/3020/pugetsoundkelpconservationandrecoveryplan.pdf).

These data are also necessary for the development and implementation of the Statewide Kelp Forest and Eelgrass Meadow Health and Conservation Plan (established by RCW 79.135.440; https://www.dnr.wa.gov/kelp-and-eelgrass-plan). This legacy data stream that has been provided by Van Wagenen Robert Farel dba Ecoscan Resource Data is the primary source of floating kelp status and trend data in one of the three sub-basins outlined in the Kelp Forest and Eelgrass Meadow Health and Conservation Prioritization Plan (Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca sub-basin). As part of DNR’s legislative mandate to protect at least 10,000 acres of kelp and eelgrass habitat by 2040, DNR is working with partners to identify priority locations for conservation and management actions.

If DNR is not able to use Van Wagenen Robert Farel dba Ecoscan Resource Data for this project, DNR will not be able to provide consistent, accurate data to this decision process as other contractors would not be able to provide the consistent, accurate data required for the project. DNR would end up spending significantly more to account for another vendor’s learning curve and would still produce data inconsistent with the information collected and analyzed https://nwstraits.org/media/3020/pugetsoundkelpconservationandrecoveryplan.pdf

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 6 of 7 consistently since 1989. Without consistent, accurate data from this legacy data stream, DNR and other managers may make policy decisions based on incorrect or inconsistent data.

In recognition of the ecological importance of kelp, the Puget Sound Partnership recently added kelp to its suite of vital sign indicators that are used to assess habitat conservation and restoration (https://vitalsigns.pugetsoundinfo.wa.gov/VitalSignIndicator/Detail/62). Thus, if DNR is not able to gather this type of data according to schedule, this fellow state agency will also be lacking essential information for their programmatic needs.

Sole Source Posting

• Sole Source Posting on Agency Website - Provide the date in which the sole source posting, the draft contract, and a copy of the Sole Source Contract Justification Template were published on your agency’s website.

- If failed to post, please explain why.

• Provide the date in which the sole source posting, the draft contract, and a copy of the Sole Source Contract Justification Template were published in WEBS.

- If failed to post, please explain why.

• Were responses received to the sole source posting in WEBS?

- If one or more responses are received, list name of entities responding and explain how the agency concluded the contract is appropriate for sole source award.

Reasonableness of Cost

• Since competition was not used as the means for procurement, how did the agency conclude that the costs, fees, or rates negotiated are fair and reasonable?

Please make a comparison with comparable contracts, use the results of a market survey, or employ some other appropriate means calculated to make such a determination.

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 7 of 7

The cost has changed by less than 10% since this contractor was first utilized by

DNR.