A.02. Justification and Approval-IAAAP.pdf

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Remedial Action under the Military Munitions Response Program at 19105.1057 and

19105.1059 at

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) Contract W912DY20D0017, Task Order W9128F22F0277

1. Contracting Agency

U.S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, 1616 Capitol Ave, Omaha, NE 68102.

2. Description of Action

This is a Justification and Approval (J&A) for an out-of-scope follow-on modification of a firm-fixed-price contract (Contract W912DY20D0017, Task Order W9128F22F0277) awarded to Hydrogeologic Inc (HGL).

3. Description of the Supplies/Services Contract W912DY20D0017, Task Order W9128F22F0277is being modified to change the level of effort for phase II archeological surveys by adding an additional two archeological sites, 13DM574 and Site 5, located within the munitions response site (MRS) 19105.1057

(Possible Demolition Site) at Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP). The phase II evaluations are an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) identified in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERLCA) Operable Unit 5 Record of Decision. The phase II archeological surveys are necessary for the completion of the overall project which is the response action for munitions removal.

The Government estimates the additional cost of the services under this modification to be $198,997.63.

4. Authority Cited

10 United States Code 3204(a)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

6.302-1(a)(2)(iii), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A) states, “For DoD, NASA, and the Coast

Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in—(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or (B)

Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.” Both clauses (A) and (B) apply to this contractual action.

5. Reason for Authority Cited

a) Background

Contract W912DY20D0017, Task Order W9128F22F0277 with HGL was awarded 29

September 2022 to complete military munitions response program (MMRP) response actions at 19105.1057 and 19105.1059 at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP).

The removal action under the original task order consist of preparation of Amended

Proposed Plans, Amended Records of Decision, Workplans and reports; community relations support; biological assessment; Archaeological Phase II evaluation and Testing;

remedial actions (RA); processing recovered Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard (MPPEH); Explosive Safety Submissions (ESS); After Action Reports (AAR) and regulatory coordination.

Since Task Order award, in collaboration with the IAAAP Environmental Restoration Manager, IAAAP Natural Resource Manager, and the Iowa Department of Natural

Resources, the Project Delivery Team has determined that Site 13DM574 and Site 5 both necessitate an archaeological study. These two archaeological sites were not included in the original task order overlap or intersect of the MRS site 19105.1057 as they had not been previously reported to the IA DNR and therefore were not in the state’s database at the time of the task order being written. It is crucial to understand that the archaeological sites studies must be studied in their entirety. Merely studying the overlapping boundaries is counterproductive and unacceptable. Failing to comprehend the full extent and context of the archaeological site, including the portions that overlap with the MRS, could lead to incomplete or inaccurate interpretations of its significance and potential impacts. Moreover, each archaeological site is protected under various federal, state, and local regulations.

Neglecting to assess and mitigate impacts to the archaeological site could result in severe legal penalties and regulatory non-compliance. Therefore, the archaeological study associated with PDS, at sites 13DM574, and Site 5 needs to be conducted to enable work to continue.

b) Justification

The modification is a logical follow-on to the original task order. The original task order serves to accomplish munitions removal action at 19105.1057 and 19105.1059 at Iowa

Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP), in accordance with CERCLA requirements, that characterize munitions using advanced geophysical characterization (AGC) and remove identified munitions for the Army. The changes required by this modification are discussed in Paragraphs 3 and 5(a). The interests of economy and efficiency will be served by a sole source follow-on task order modification for the following reasons:

For performance of the task order, HGL is a highly specialized environmental science, engineering small business contractor and has considerable experience in performing military munitions response investigations and removal actions, having completed

CERCLA Remedial Investigation, remedial designs, and removal actions. HGL has recently performed environmental investigation projects with USACE Omaha District and other DoD agencies which demonstrate that the firm has experience in achieving

CERCLA process goals and successfully working with DoD agencies under the review of regulatory agencies. As the incumbent contractor at IAAAP, award to HGL will avoid duplication of costs and unnecessary delays to the follow-on work.

FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A) states the following: “For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the

Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.” If this work were to be awarded as a new task order, there are several deliverables that the new contractor would have to complete before being able to commence the next phase in the

RI process that the current contractor has already completed. These include the Project

Management Plan (PMP), Accident Prevention Plan (APP), Uniform Federal Policy –

Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP), and Archeological Work Plan. Based on the negotiated price for the original Task Order, it is estimated that doing a separate

Task Order to incorporate the changes sought by this modification would cost the

Government an additional $209,225.23 in duplicated fees for a new approved final PMP, APP, UFP-QAPP, Archaeological Work Plan. If this work were to be awarded as a new task order under full and open competition, the new contractor would have to complete the following tasks before the Government could achieve the next step in the removal action process (delineation), as the resulting deliverables are not transferrable between task orders or contractors, regardless of scope of work or location of work to be performed.

Task Cost already incurred under current task order

Anticipated duplicated cost for a new task order (negotiated cost of task under current task order + 5.6% for inflation and wage increases)

Approved Final PMP $31,681.67 $33,455.84

Approved Final UFP-QAPP and

APP

$116,955.82 $123,505.34

Approved Final Archeological

Work Plan $49,192.47 $52,264.05

Note: Pricing for these tasks/deliverables has steadily increased since the original award date for this task order (29 September 2022), as contractors are adjusting for inflation and wage increases. This assumes a cumulative inflation rate of 5.6% since 2022 (Consumer Price Index; U.S. Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics).

These costs associated with a new Task Order with a new contractor would be above and beyond the costs that would be incurred with an out-of-scope modification to the existing Task Order with the existing contractor, as the existing contractor would be able to integrate the scope changes into its ongoing Task Order workflow without duplication of effort. This avoids a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B) states the following: “For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.” If the required services are acquired competitively by a contractor other than HGL, a new contractor would require a minimum of eight additional weeks to go through the new Task Order contracting process. Once a new

Task Order is awarded, there would be additional time required to on-ramp the new contractor to the project requirements, hold the necessary kick-off and project scoping meetings, coordinate the new contractor’s schedules with the customer and USACE, and develop approved project planning documents (which historically takes 6 months for

CERLCA projects and would include a PMP, APP, UFP-QAPP, and Archeological

Work Plan). This would result in major, unacceptable schedule delays in performing field work, and field work would not be able to be run concurrently between contractors.

This constitutes an unacceptable delay for the Government. These schedule delays associated with a new Task Order with a new contractor would be above and beyond any schedule delays that would be incurred with an out-of-scope modification to the existing Task Order with the existing contractor, as the existing contractor would be able to integrate the scope changes into its ongoing Task Order workflow/schedule without duplication of effort or additional delays. Considering historic turnaround and review times for the above deliverables, the Government should anticipate the following additional schedule delays associated with a new task order and contractor.

Deliverable Reviewer Required

Version

Minimum

Contractor

Development Time (days)

Minimum

Review Time

(days)

Total Minimum

Additional

Schedule Delay (Days)

PMP USACE Draft 30 30 -

PMP USACE Final 14 0 -

PMP - - - - 74

APP and UFP-

QAPP

USACE, USACE

EM CX

Pre-Draft 120 30 -

APP and UFP-

QAPP

EPA R7, IA DNR Draft 30 30 -

APP and UFP-

QAPP

EPA R7, IA DNR Draft Final 30 30 -

APP and UFP-

QAPP

USACE, EPA R7,

IA DNR

Final 30 30 -

APP and UFP-

QAPP

- - - - 330

Archeological

Work Plan

USACE/ Army Pre-Draft 30 30

Archeological Work Plan

IA SHPO Draft 30 30

Archeological

Work Plan

USACE/Army, IA

SHPO

Final 30 30

Archeological

Work Plan

- - - - 180

Grand Total - - - - 584

Notes:

1. The PMP and UFP-QAPP/APP prepared and reviewed concurrently. The contractor must have a Final PMP approved prior to commencing other project work.

2. The USACE, USACE EM CX, and EPA R7 reviews of the UFP-QAPP are not concurrent. USACE review the document first, then USACE EM CX, then EPA R7 and IA DNR

3. The durations specified above are minimums and reflect best case scenarios. It is not unusual for additional time to be required for development and/or review of these deliverables at any given stage.

c) Alternatives

The alternative of issuing a new task order to HGL would not provide any financial benefits and would cause the Contracting Officer’s Representative to have to oversee and submit reports for two task orders to perform new but similar requirements for the same customer.

d) Impact if not Approved

If the work in question is not awarded to HGL via a task order modification, the

Government can expect to pay a greater amount than it would pay HGL due to the substantial duplication of effort that can be expected from a new contractor. For example, engagement with a new contractor would require repeating a kick-off meeting and project scoping meetings, duplicated status calls and reporting, duplicated project planning documents, and additional efforts to coordinate schedules with two different contractors performing similar ongoing efforts. These duplicated costs could instead be used on the existing task order with HGL, as necessary, to achieve the primary project goal of complete vertical and horizontal delineation of munitions through advanced geophysical mapping and removal and disposal of identified munitions.

If a new contractor were to be utilized, there would also be a significant loss of consistency in the project. For example, a new contractor’s reporting format for major deliverables and processes for conducting the MMRP removal action, methodology for phase II archeological study (systematic/controlled surface collection, shovel tests, mechanical auguring, hand-excavated test units, deep testing, mechanical removal of the plow zone, and use of remote sensing techniques) can vary vastly from that of the existing contractor, HGL due to methodologies that cannot be dictated in performance work statements. This would require increased effort from the Government to ensure data is presented and evaluated consistently by each contractor.

Additionally, there would be a several months-long delay before a new contractor could mobilize to conduct the field work to complete the archeological phase II surveys, due to the added time it would take to complete the contracting process for a new contractor, as discussed in Paragraph 5(b). This would significantly delay the Government in accomplishing its goal of completing an RI in a timely fashion and would reflect poorly on USACE’s ability to execute IAAP's mission.

As outlined in Paragraph 5(b), the Government would incur duplicated costs for deliverables that 1) must be approved prior to commencing field work at each installation, and 2) have already been completed by HGL and approved by the Government. These deliverables are not transferable between contractors regardless of scope and/or location of work to be performed. As prices for these deliverables have steadily increased since task order award, at a 5.6% cumulative inflation rate, the Government should anticipate approximately $209,225.23 in duplicated cost.

Further, these deliverables take a considerable amount of time to prepare and review. The preparation and review of these deliverables would delay the next phase of the removal action process by at least 19 months, as outlined above. If a follow-on modification is given to the current contractor, they will be able to complete the next phase of the field work within 60 days of negotiation and award.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition

For the reasons described above in Paragraphs 4 and 5, no effort has been made to obtain competition for this effort. The original contract for this work was awarded using a competitive process. Utilizing any other contractor for this work would increase the cost of the work that would not be recovered through competition and result in a significant time delay to the Government.

7. Actions to Increase Competition

For the reasons described above in Paragraphs 5 and 6, no effort has been made to increase competition for this effort. This is a one-time requirement.

8. Market Research

No market research was conducted due to the reasons discussed in Paragraph 5. There is sufficient remaining capacity on the base IDIQ contract to accommodate this modification.

9. Interested Sources

No notice of intent has been posted to sam.gov at this time to solicit interest due to the reasons as discussed in Paragraph 5.

10. Other Facts

See Paragraph 5(d) for the extent and nature of the harm to the Government if HGL were not used for the required services.

11. Technical Certification

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the Justification and Approval, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Seth Reedy Project Manager

12. Requirements Certification

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the Justification and Approval, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination/ Contracting Officer Certification

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable based on comparison with existing contract prices and/or an Independent

Government Estimate. I further certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Stephanie Rostermundt Contracting Officer

14. Legal Review and Concurrence

I have reviewed this Justification and Approval and find the justification adequate to support other than full and open competition.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Assistant District Counsel