A13 - FSS JA - PR 85533 signed.pdf

Template for a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Limited-Sources Justification

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Limited-Sources Justification (LSJ) pursuant to FAR Subpart 8.4. This template is for use with orders issued under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program where the value exceeds simplified acquisition threshold and competition is restricted: (1) to fewer schedule contractors than required in FAR 8.405-1, 8.405-2, or 8.405-3, or (2) to an item peculiar to one manufacturer. See FAR Subpart 8.4 for additional guidance. This template is not for use with acquisitions other than those under FAR Subpart 8.4.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 8.405-6 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

Acquisition Title:

Agency:

Acquisition Year (FY):

Author:

2. Description of Action:

Nature: New Requirement Follow-on Requirement

Modification to Existing Purchase Order/Contract Number:

Pricing: Firm-Fixed Price Time & Materials Cost

Other:

Funds: OMA Other Funds:

<For each proposed contractor if more than one (e.g., brand name):>

Name of Proposed Contractor(s): SRC, Inc.

Street Address: 7502 Round Pond Rd

City, State, Zip: North Syracuse, NY 13212-2558

Remove ContractorAdd Contractor

3. Description of Supplies and Services to Include Contract Vehicle/Number Utilized:

This procurement is for the preparation of final toxicological profiles and associated documents. The development of toxicological profiles and other scientific documents supports federal, state and local health professionals, public health assessors, and numerous groups and individuals in understanding the potential for human exposure to various hazardous substances. This task order is to prepare the final toxicological profile documents for which the draft for public comment has already been prepared. This is a continuing of a prior task order under IDIQ 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015.

The estimated value of the proposed action, including all options, is $ 399,954.50

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate. Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer). If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services.

Provide information for any options included in the order. If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification.

4. Authority:

ORDER AGAINST FSS: Authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program, Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251, et seq.); Title 40 U.S.C. 501, Services for Executive Agencies; and Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (PL 107-107) and implemented by FAR 8.405-6. Mark the applicable exception and for each discuss how the cited authority applies in accordance with FAR 8.405-6(c)(2)(iv).

An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the procedures would result in unacceptable delays (FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A));

Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level or quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized (FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B));

Due to the highly complex and technically specialized nature of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, using the same contractor (SRC) to finalize documents for which they already prepared draft (for public comment) version will be lowest risk and most beneficial to the government and public interest. The project is already 2 years into the work and the full final product is not delivered, so the work is not really finished. Starting fresh with a new contractor on previous work will substantially lengthen the start up time, while remaining with SRC will benefit the government because it will reduce the time required to start work on these documents since the contractor can seamlessly begin work on the finalization of these technical documents that they already drafted. Also, since they prepared the draft documents, this contractor will be much more efficient in preparing the final documents because they have already reviewed all the scientific studies and abstracted the information from these studies to prepare the documents. An alternative vendor would need to re-check all of that work, adding time, cost, and risk of error. In addition, this contractor developed the database used for tox profile work for perfluoroalkyls and it will be most efficient to use them for the supporting work for this database. In contrast, transitioning to a new contractor risks failure of performance in a number of areas. The lack of familiarity and history with this work risks a failure to fully understand the data and history, meaning they may not be successful in finishing the final documents. This risks errors that undermine the scientific credibility. This risks increased start up time to get a handle on a product midway through, like a 2nd manufacturing trying to finish a car a previous manufacturer started. This also all means that it will increase costs. While that is often not a major factor in a J&A, in this instance, it could be significant.

The previous draft of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkys was prepared under previous task order 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015. Although we call it Task Order 20 from the overall 2018 IDIQ; this is logical follow-on work to that task as a project, thought this FAR authority is used since that IDIQ is no longer in operation and thus cannot be used as a contract vehicle for a follow-on.

In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited sources procedures (FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C)); or

Due to the highly complex and technically specialized nature of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, using the same contractor (SRC) to finalize documents for which they already prepared draft (for public comment) version will be lowest risk and most beneficial to the government and public interest. The project is already 2 years into the work and the full final product is not delivered, so the work is not really finished. Starting fresh with a new contractor on previous work will substantially lengthen the start up time, while remaining with SRC will benefit the government because it will reduce the time required to start work on these documents since the contractor can seamlessly begin work on the finalization of these technical documents that they already drafted. Also, since they prepared the draft documents, this contractor will be much more efficient in preparing the final documents because they have already reviewed all the scientific studies and abstracted the information from these studies to prepare the documents. An alternative vendor would need to re-check all of that work, adding time, cost, and risk of error. In addition, this contractor developed the database used for tox profile work for perfluoroalkyls and it will be most efficient to use them for the supporting work for this database. In contrast, transitioning to a new contractor risks failure of performance in a number of areas. The lack of familiarity and history with this work risks a failure to fully understand the data and history, meaning they may not be successful in finishing the final documents. This risks errors that undermine the scientific credibility. This risks increased start up time to get a handle on a product midway through, like a 2nd manufacturing trying to finish a car a previous manufacturer started. This also all means that it will increase costs. While that is often not a major factor in a J&A, in this instance, it could be significant.

The previous draft of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkys was prepared under previous task order 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015. Although we call it Task Order 20 from the overall 2018 IDIQ; this is logical follow-on work to that task as a project, thought this FAR authority is used since that IDIQ is no longer in operation and thus cannot be used as a contract vehicle for a follow-on.

An item peculiar to one manufacturer can be a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer). A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer. (FAR 8.405-6(b)).

When competition is limited to items peculiar to one manufacturer, this justification must explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements, and that market research indicates other companies' similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs in accordance with FAR 11.105.

5. Market Research:

Describe the extent of the market research conducted among the schedule holders and the results, or a statement of the reason that market research was not conducted. Brand name specifications shall not be used unless the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s need.

This acquisition is for a task order under the current multiple award BPA awarded in 2023 (contract 75D301-23-A-17950) which utilizes individual task orders to provide technical assistance services for the development of toxicological profiles and other scientific documents. The BPA procurement was solicited as a General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule (MAS). NAICS code are 541620 and 541690, Environmental Consulting Services and Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services, respectively. Request for Quotation (RFQ) Number 75D301-23-Q-76466 was announced in July 2023 through the GSA eBuy website. In March 2023 (close date 3/24), GSA posted a request for information (RFI) from potential vendors. GSA undertook market research as a service (MRAS) and the market research report for the base BPA.

Four proposals were received for the BPA and all vendors were deemed acceptable – Abt Associates; Eastern Research Group (ERG), Inc; ICF, Inc; and SRC, Inc.

6. Actions to Increase Competition:

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

While generally, the work on these BPAs is competed, this need extends from a task order on the previous IDIQ and the work there is not finished. Due to the end of the IDIQ, that task order cannot be extended so a new task order is being award to complete the work and expand some of the intimately related new work connected to it. There is a multiple award BPA in place for the preparation of toxicological profiles. If a similar requirement arises in the future, every effort will be made to compete it to the maximum extent possible. There is a multiple award BPA in place for the preparation of toxicological profiles. If a similar requirement arises in the future, every effort will be made to compete it to the maximum extent possible.

While generally, the work on these BPAs is competed, this need extends from a task order on the previous IDIQ and the work there is not finished. Due to the end of the IDIQ, that task order cannot be extended so a new task order is being award to complete the work and expand some of the intimately related new work connected to it.

7. Any other facts supporting the justification:

8. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Limited-Sources Justification is accurate and complete.

Program Manager

Name: Nickolette Roney

Position Title: Health Scientist

Email address: nroney@cdc.gov

Phone: 770-488-3332

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager)

Name: Henry Abadin

Position Title: Chief, Toxicology Section

Email address: habadin@cdc.gov

Signature:

Date:

9. Best Value Determination: By my signature below, after review of the relevant documents, I have determined that the order subject to this Limited-Sources Justification represents the best value for the Government as set forth in FAR 8.404(d), and constitutes a fair and reasonable price. The basis for my determination is as follows:

Describe in detail the basis for the determination that this order provides the best value, and that the price is fair and reasonable. Attach and/or summarize applicable market research, commercial prices lists, comparable GSA schedule pricing or other markers that were used in this determination.

This award will be made off of BPA Pricing predetermined to be fair and reasonable. It will be compared to prior awards and the IGCE.

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this justification subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been approved for acquisition.

Name: David Smythe Phone: 770-488-2782

Signature: Date: Jan 3, 2025

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million (value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports limiting sources.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports limiting sources.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million (value calculated including all options)):

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur: Non-Concur:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve limiting sources for the above stated procurement, subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

State supplies/services being procured:

This procurement is for the preparation of final toxicological profiles and associated documents. The development of toxicological profiles and other scientific documents supports federal, state and local health professionals, public health assessors, and numerous groups and individuals in understanding the potential for human exposure to various hazardous substances. This task order is to prepare the final toxicological profile documents for which the draft for public comment has already been prepared. This is a continuing of a prior task order under IDIQ 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015.

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

Template for a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Limited-Sources Justification

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Limited-Sources Justification (LSJ) pursuant to FAR Subpart 8.4. This template is for use with orders issued under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program where the value exceeds simplified acquisition threshold and competition is restricted: (1) to fewer schedule contractors than required in FAR 8.405-1, 8.405-2, or 8.405-3, or (2) to an item peculiar to one manufacturer. See FAR Subpart 8.4 for additional guidance. This template is not for use with acquisitions other than those under FAR Subpart 8.4.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 8.405-6 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

2. Description of Action:

Nature:

Pricing:

Funds:

<For each proposed contractor if more than one (e.g., brand name):>

3. Description of Supplies and Services to Include Contract Vehicle/Number Utilized:

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate. Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer). If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services. Provide information for any options included in the order. If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification.

4. Authority:

When competition is limited to items peculiar to one manufacturer, this justification must explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements, and that market research indicates other companies' similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs in accordance with FAR 11.105.

5. Market Research:

Describe the extent of the market research conducted among the schedule holders and the results, or a statement of the reason that market research was not conducted. Brand name specifications shall not be used unless the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s need.

6. Actions to Increase Competition:

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

7. Any other facts supporting the justification:

8. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Limited-Sources Justification is accurate and complete.

Program Manager Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Phone:

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager) Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Signature:

Date:

9. Best Value Determination: By my signature below, after review of the relevant documents, I have determined that the order subject to this Limited-Sources Justification represents the best value for the Government as set forth in FAR 8.404(d), and constitutes a fair and reasonable price. The basis for my determination is as follows:

Describe in detail the basis for the determination that this order provides the best value, and that the price is fair and reasonable. Attach and/or summarize applicable market research, commercial prices lists, comparable GSA schedule pricing or other markers that were used in this determination.

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this justification subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been approved for acquisition.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million (value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports limiting sources.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports limiting sources.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million (value calculated including all options)):

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur:

Non-Concur:

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve limiting sources for the above stated procurement, subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

State supplies/services being procured:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304 Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11.0.0.20130303.1.892433.887364 Justification & Approval - Federal Supply Schedule Health and Human Services Justification & Approval - Federal Supply Schedule

The previous draft of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkys was prepared under previous task order 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015. Although we call it Task Order 20 from the overall 2018 IDIQ; this is logical follow-on work to that task as a project, thought this FAR authority is used since that IDIQ is no longer in operation and thus cannot be used as a contract vehicle for a follow-on.

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304: Due to the highly complex and technically specialized nature of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, using the same contractor (SRC) to finalize documents for which they already prepared draft (for public comment) version will be lowest risk and most beneficial to the government and public interest. The project is already 2 years into the work and the full final product is not delivered, so the work is not really finished. Starting fresh with a new contractor on previous work will substantially lengthen the start up time, while remaining with SRC will benefit the government because it will reduce the time required to start work on these documents since the contractor can seamlessly begin work on the finalization of these technical documents that they already drafted. Also, since they prepared the draft documents, this contractor will be much more efficient in preparing the final documents because they have already reviewed all the scientific studies and abstracted the information from these studies to prepare the documents. An alternative vendor would need to re-check all of that work, adding time, cost, and risk of error. In addition, this contractor developed the database used for tox profile work for perfluoroalkyls and it will be most efficient to use them for the supporting work for this database. In contrast, transitioning to a new contractor risks failure of performance in a number of areas. The lack of familiarity and history with this work risks a failure to fully understand the data and history, meaning they may not be successful in finishing the final documents. This risks errors that undermine the scientific credibility. This risks increased start up time to get a handle on a product midway through, like a 2nd manufacturing trying to finish a car a previous manufacturer started. This also all means that it will increase costs. While that is often not a major factor in a J&A, in this instance, it could be significant.

The previous draft of the Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkys was prepared under previous task order 75D30118D96349 75D30122F00015. Although we call it Task Order 20 from the overall 2018 IDIQ; this is logical follow-on work to that task as a project, thought this FAR authority is used since that IDIQ is no longer in operation and thus cannot be used as a contract vehicle for a follow-on.

While generally, the work on these BPAs is competed, this need extends from a task order on the previous IDIQ and the work there is not finished. Due to the end of the IDIQ, that task order cannot be extended so a new task order is being award to complete the work and expand some of the intimately related new work connected to it.