Limited_Source_pdf_6-10-2014-signed.pdf

Request for Limited Source Procurement National Appeals Division

Appeals Case Tracking System (NADTrack)

1. Contracting Office: USDA, Office of Procurement and Property, Procurement Operations Division

2. Nature of the Action: NAD’s contract (and all available option years) with MicroPact

Engineering Inc (AG-3142-D-09-0469) expires in May 2014. The contract was for an Appeals Case Tracking system. NAD requests approval for a sole source or limited source procurement with MicroPact to continue the present services. The base contract was awarded through STARS (8a). The last available option year was reduced to ten months because MicroPact’s small business certification expires in May 2014 and GSA denied an extension.

3. Description of the Supplies or Services: In FY 2009, the USDA National Appeals Division

(NAD) implemented an integrated appeals case tracking system called NADTrack . The contractor provides a system specifically tailored to the business needs of agencies that require electronic appeals case management. In this instance, Micropact continues to provide a Business Process Management (BPM) platform (Entellitrak©) with a customized application for NAD activities (NADTrack). The core implementation of NADTrack was completed successfully after the award of the contract, but subsequent to the award NAD implemented modifications and enhancements. In summary, the system supports the following integrated activities:

Present Services

Standardized web-based interface for all NAD employees and customers.

Screens and data fields for input and retrieval for all aspects of appeals case tracking.

Appeals case flow tracking, case assignment, appellant and customer.

System administration and access organized by user roles.

Dozens of reports and unlimited ad hoc query reporting.

Document upload and retrieval.

Audio file upload and retrieval.

Web page interface to the public so customers can search decisions.

Email notifications to NAD employees, managers, and customers about status of a case, publication of a legal decision, and a variety of other informational activities.

Ability for customers to Efile seven types of appeals and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests through the NAD portal on its website. Efile is integrated into the overall case management database.

Mobility application of NAD Efile and decision search for tablet and smart phone users. (In progress; anticipated completion in FY 2014)

E-authentication access (In-progress; anticipated completion in FY 2014)

Near-Term Plans for Increased Services

Full-scaled document management system for all case files—integrated into current Appeals Case Tracking.

Natural language reporting module.

In FY 2012, NAD also moved its server and database hosting from USDA NITC to the contractor in a cloud environment. This modification streamlined database administration support and saved NAD approximately $55,000 in annual hosting costs.

4. Estimated Cost and Period of Performance:

FY 2009 to Present: $1.36 million

Estimated Cost for current system activities: FY 2014 to FY (Base and four option years):

$1.7 million

NAD Financial Contract Structure:

Activities:

Migration:

Operations and Maintenance: User Licenses, Maintenance

Database Administration / Help Desk:

Hosting Services

Enhancements: By task order. (Enhancement task orders have a one-time project and software purchase cost. If the enhancement is a new software application, user fees continue for future option years.)

5. Supporting Rationale

The rationale for this request is based on two categories of justification for a limited / sole source procurement:

A. The features of the product can only come from one source.

• Follow on development for the existing system is specialized and only available from the current system provider.

B. New Work

The original procurement was not issued under sole source or limited procurement;

Competition and implementation of a new system would result in substantial duplication and costs that could not be reasonably expected to be recovered.

The features of the product can only come from one source.

Research and vendor lists for this justification comes from Gartner, an independent IT and advisory company. It provides industry benchmarks and standards for system implementation. I have attached the February 2014 Gartner Report—G00250141 (Report) for Critical Capabilities for Case Management Frameworks. The Gartner report provides a list and description of vendors that provide Case Management Frameworks.

Case management solutions that integrate Business Process Management, workflow, and customized applications have over the last few years become specialized products in the IT industry. MicroPact’s entellitrak platform is purpose built to address the complexity of case handling, and it is a specialized platform meant for case-management style processes. The platform is governed by rules and data, rather than by procedures and business flow.

Although a small number of other providers may provide a Case Management Framework (CMF), the entellitrak application is not part of a CMF platform, as it provides case management functionality over and above the features of the platform. (Report p. 33). As a business practice, MicroPact offers some preconfigurations for different kinds of case management (e.g. EEO, Investigations, etc.), and the NAD version of this configuration is but one instance. The advantages of NAD adopting this platform is that it has a strong focus on case data, which can include meta data, documents, audio files, scanned documents, email notifications, queries and reports. These are essential business practices for NAD operations and activities. No other identified vendor provides the same application on a Case Management Framework.

The system can also be further developed with additional modules so that users with all levels of access can interact and exchange information. Past modifications and enhancements have included the ability to Efile, advanced reporting and ad hoc query capability, advanced document management and web interface for public searches, and mobile application for tablet and smart phone users. There have also been developments in the project that NAD has generically defined as “enhancements” that permit NADTrack to interface with USDA E-authentication, improve reporting, adapt to new statutory case law, and improve system engagement for users. The planned future developments that will be a part of the new request for proposal will include natural language reporting and full document management that integrates the business processes of work and document flow with the data, content, and workflow in the system. At this time, only the present contractor can design and implement these planned developments with the current data structure and business flow. A new system, complete with new data migration, business process analysis, interface design, and all present system activities would be required.

New Work

First, the original procurement was not issued under limited source or sole source procedures.

Second, there would be substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Assuming competition and award of a contract to another vendor, at a minimum, the following costly activities would be necessary to implement the new system:

Business process analysis phase

Results of business process analysis incorporated into data workflow design (includes assignments, notifications, and other case appeals workflow specifics).

Data migration plan o Migration of audio files, documents, and data fields into new CMF.

o Server Migration

New Security Assessment and Authorization (SA&A) to meet USDA Cyber Security, FISMA, and NIST standards.

New Screen and User Interface designs

Training for all NAD users

Quality Control Processes for all of the above.

None of the activities above would be required if this procurement request is approved. Of the activities listed above, the history of IT database design and implementation shows that business process analysis, application workflow design, and migration reflect the bulk of IT project costs. NAD also has experience with process design and general migration of both data and the application for a case tracking database, especially in migration of its legacy system; It is very reasonable to assume the present data size, the type of data, and the complexity of the present application would require new costs that would not be recovered with a competitive process. Part of this reasoned calculation is based upon the efficiencies gained from the adaptable IT solutions in CMF and entellitrak application.

6. Best Value: Over a 5-year period NAD has expended approximately $ 1.3 million for the system, with proportionately insignificant costs for design and migration. There would be substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. The contracting officer determines that the anticipated cost to the government of the services covered by this J&A will be fair and resasonable.

(The Contracting Officer will explain how the order represents the best value FAR 8.404(d))

7. Market Research: The initial contract was under STARS (8a). At the time, no other firms identified had a similar product in 2009. List of vendors in the attached Garner Report supports the market research.

(Explain market research conducted among FSS holders and the findings or why it was not conducted, FAR 10)

8. Other Supporting Facts: See above information.

9. Competition Barrier: Although new database applications are expected to cause NAD and organizational turbulence, the replacement of the current case management system with new workflows, screens, user roles, configurations, and data content view would be very significant in its application to the National Appeals Division. Much of the workflow in the current system is dependent upon statutory and regulatory authority, legal definitions, and roles of employees and appellants in the appeals process that translate to user roles in the application. These administrative and technical legal processes would require in-depth analysis to become embedded in a new product offered by a different vendor.

(Explain actions taken or to be taken to increase competition for future acquisition of the same supplies or services such as:

will the Government revise overly technical specifications/SOWs, acquire data rights and drawings)

CERTIFICATION:

I certify that the information for this requirement meets the Government’s minimum and the justification is accurate and complete to support the acquisition for the justification.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the data supporting this justification is accurate and complete to support the acquisition for the justification.

Contracting Officer Date

Chief, Contracting Branch Date

6-10-2014

Kelly.L.Moore Typewritten Text

Kelly.L.Moore Typewritten Text

Kelly.L.Moore Typewritten Text HCAD Signature

Kelly.L.Moore Typewritten Text Date

Kelly.L.Moore Typewritten Text 6/13/2014

Richard.Jiron Typewritten Text 06/17/2014