Consolidation DF_200M A-E Master Planning IDCs - Fully Signed_Redacted.pdf

CUI

ATTENTION

Use this space to indicate categories, limited dissemination controls, special instructions, points of contact, etc., if needed.

ATTENTION

All individuals handling this information are required to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.

Handling, storage, reproduction, and disposition of the attached document(s) must be in accordance with 32 CFR Part 2002 and applicable agency policy.

allowed as necessary and permissible to any individual(s), organization(s), or grouping(s) of users, provided such access or dissemination is consistent with or in furtherance of a Lawful Government Purpose and in a manner consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Government-wide policies.

Standard Form 901 (11-18) Prescribed by GSA/ISOO | 32 CFR 2002

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION (SWD)

TULSA DISTRICT (SWT)

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

CONSOLIDATION MEMORANDUM

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (A-E) MASTER PLANNING SERVICES

INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACTS (IDCs)

IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION (SWD)

REGIONAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (RPEC)

As defined in 15 USC 657q(a)(2), the term “consolidation of contract requirements”, with respect to contract requirements of a Federal agency, means use of a solicitation to obtain offers for a single contract or multiple award contract to satisfy two or more requirements of the Federal agency for goods and services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which the offers are solicited or to satisfy requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 2.101 adds that a separate contract, as used in the definition of consolidation, means a contract that has been performed by any business, including small and other than small business (SB) concerns.

Further, FAR 7.107-2(a) requires that consolidation of requirements with an estimated total dollar value exceeding $2 million shall be supported by a written determination that consolidation is necessary and justified in accordance with (IAW) 15 U.S.C. § 657q.

I have reviewed this requirement and associated market research and determined that consolidation, in accordance with 15 U.S.C 657q, FAR 2.101 and 7.107-2, Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5107.107-2 “Consolidation”, and USACE Acquisition Instruction (UAI) 5107.107-2-100 “Consolidation” is both necessary and justified. The benefits of this acquisition strategy will substantially exceed the benefits of alternative contracting approaches. My review resulted in the following findings:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FINDINGS

1. Introduction: USACE SWT plans to solicit offers for a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services for Master Planning Services Support, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541320 Landscape Architectural Services, estimated at $200 Million ($200M) to support the RPEC master planning mission and has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this procurement is both necessary and justified. This Consolidation Memorandum determination and finding applies to the IDC awards, as well as all Task Orders awarded under the IDCs. This Consolidation Memorandum encompasses Task Orders issued under the IDCs; therefore, individual Task Orders will not require a separate consolidation determination.

The RPEC is a USACE Headquarters (HQUSACE) designated Planning Support Center (PSC) that engages in and provides enterprise level reimbursable Master Planning support via signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and approved Area of Responsibility (AOR) coordination agreements for a variety of customers. As a duly designated PSC, the RPEC plays a key role in supporting critical Department of Defense master planning and related requirements.

2. Description of the Procurement Action: This acquisition will result in the following:

a. Project Description: The purpose of this acquisition is to provide RPEC PSC A-E IDCs in support of master planning activities. The proposed A-E IDCs will provide the means for the RPEC PSC to meet all relevant Master Planning requirements. The scope of this acquisition includes studies, assessments, analysis, and reporting for Master Planning related activities such as, but not limited to, Vision Plans, Area Development Plans, Base Camp Plans, Customer Concept Documents, Project Charrette Reports, Requirements Analysis, Planning Charrettes, Installation Energy and Water Plans, Sustainability Plans, Real Property Inventories & Evaluations, Facility Utilization Assessments, Transportation Plans, Utility Plans, Stormwater Plans, Recreation Plans and related environmental functions including Natural Resource Management, Cultural Resource Management, Historical Resource Management, Water Resource Management Plans and other A-E services IAW all DoD, local, state and federal regulation, policies and goals.

The primary geographic boundary for work executed under this contract is the SWD RPEC supporting Fort Worth, Galveston, Little Rock and Tulsa Districts. However, the Government may execute task orders beyond this geographic area in limited circumstances where the Contracting Officer makes a written determination that the intended delivery method is within the technical scope of the contract, was considered in the contract prices and in the evaluation determination for award, and otherwise complies with the contract’s terms and conditions and all applicable laws and regulations. The absolute boundary of this contract is within the 48 Contiguous States (CONUS), Alaska and Hawaii, Outlying Areas as defined in FAR 2.101, including the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Saipan, U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS), including Japan, South Korea, Kwajalein. All work to be performed in Japan or South Korea will be IAW Attachment 2.

The Government will acquire a target of eight (8) A-E IDCs under one (1) MATOC with a total shared capacity of $200M. A target of five (5) will be awarded to the SB Reserve (a target of one (1) Women-Owned SB (WOSB), a target of one (1) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB (SDVOSB) and a target of three (3) SB IDCs) and at least three (3) Unrestricted IDCs to complete the target of eight (8) IDCs for this acquisition.

A single synopsis will be issued. Per Engineering Pamphlet (EP) 715-1-7, paragraph 3- 10(c), there must be a sufficient number of firms recommended to ensure that at least two (2) most highly qualified firms remain “in reserve” for each business category when negotiations commence so that the desired number of awards can be negotiated and awarded. Each A-E IDC will have a seven (7) year ordering period which will consist of a five (5) year base period and one two (2) year option period. The Contracting Officer (KO) has determined it is in the best interest of the Government to establish a minimum contract guarantee of $2,500 for the base period only and a minimum amount per task order of $25,000. The SB reserve will be reviewed for all task orders IAW FAR 19.504(c), Orders under Reserves and the Brooks Act. Should FAR 19.504(c) and the Brooks Act not be met, the task order will be solicited to all MATOC holders. Each firm, defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture or engineering” per FAR 36.102, will be awarded only one contract. Unique identification of the firm will be confirmed via the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).

b. Description of Procurement History: The following discussion summarizes an overview and status of previously awarded A-E Master Planning Service IDCs to support RPEC master planning programs. Historically, a combination of unrestricted and various SB set-aside contracts under NAICS code 541320 have been acquired and utilized to execute RPEC Master Planning A-E Services projects. In 2019, SWT awarded on behalf of the RPEC, a suite of six (6) (three (3) Unrestricted and three (3) SB set-asides) FFP Master Planning A-E IDC contracts with a total capacity of $49.8M ($24.6M unrestricted and $25.2M SB set-aside) with a total five (5)-year ordering period.

Table 1 below presents the details of these current A-E Master Planning Service IDCs and remaining capacity. This information is current as of 1 November 2021 and includes capacity reservations which have not yet been obligated. Capacity is divided between three Unrestricted and three SB set-aside IDCs.

Table 1: Summary of existing A-E Service Acquisitions and Available Capacity.

* Remaining capacity estimates account for awarded (obligated) and reserved (pending award) capacity.

This utilization rate is much higher than originally planned and remaining capacity will not be sufficient to support projected workload requirements during the contract life.

Prior to the most recent acquisition of A-E Master Planning IDCs in 2019, RPEC did not have any A-E IDCs specifically for Master Planning. Prior to 2019 there was no A-E IDCs specifically for master planning and previous contract awards to support the

Contractor and Contract Number

Business Size/ Set- Aside

Expiration Date Combined Shared Capacity (Including Unexercised Base Contract Capacity)

Obligated or Reserved to date (Includes unexercised options and capacity reservations)

Potential Remaining Capacity*

SB 3/21/2024

$25.2M

SB 3/21/2024

SB 3/21/2024

UR/Large Business

(LB)

5/1/2024

$24.6MUR/LB 5/1/2024

UR/LB 5/1/2024

Total $49.8M mission requirements involved the time-consuming search for available capacity within

USACE.

c. Contract Type: The proposed contracts will be firm-fixed-price (FFP).

d. Selection Process: SWT and the RPEC will conduct the source selection IAW FAR

36.602 – Selection of Firms for A-E Contracts, and its Supplements. Selection evaluation will be performed by an evaluation board composed of highly qualified professional employees having collective experience in engineering and other master planning services, acquisition, as well as the specific type of technical work being contracted. The chairperson and board members will consist primarily of registered or licensed USACE architects and engineers, as appropriate for the type of work.

However, personnel in other disciplines may be members to provide supplemental, specialized expertise when needed. The Chief of Engineering may issue a waiver to allow an unregistered engineer or architect to serve on the selection board provided that the individual has comparable education, knowledge, and experience that would qualify the individual for professional registration. IAW FAR 36.602-1, all offers received in response to the solicitation will be evaluated based on the following selection criteria listed in descending order of importance.

Primary Criteria shall consist of:

1. Specialized experience and technical competence in type of work required.

2. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services.

3. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.

4. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

5. Knowledge of the locality of the project.

Secondary Criteria shall consist of:

(1) Small Business Participation Plan (LB and SB Offerors).

(2) Geographic Proximity.

(3) The volume of work awarded by DoD during the previous 12 months.

(4) Consider as appropriate superior performance evaluations on recent completed DoD contracts.

Secondary criteria will only be evaluated as additional discriminators among technically equal firms. IAW EP 715-1-7, the secondary criteria are listed in order of importance.

EP 715-1-7 lists the secondary criteria in order of: SB and SDB Participation, Geographic Proximity, and Volume of DoD Contract Awards. Per EP 715-1-7(1)(a) the secondary criteria are listed in the order of importance which is usually most appropriate. The secondary criteria have been listed in order of importance IAW EP 715-1-7 for this specific requirement.

Per EP 715-1-7, paragraph 3-10.c there must be at least two (2) most highly qualified firms “in reserve” for each business category when negotiations commence so that the desired number of awards can be negotiated and awarded. Based on the acquisition approach detailed in this document, at a minimum, the Selection board must have five

(5) highly qualified offerors for the synopsis to award a target of three (3) IDCs and five

(5) highly qualified offerors for the SB reserve to award a target of three (3) SB IDCs and three (3) highly qualified offerors for each socio-economic category to award one

(1) WOSB IDC and one (1) SDVOSB IDC.

After review of the SF330s, if there are less than the number of highly qualified offerors required for each targeted socio-economic category (i.e., SDVOSB and WOSB), up to an additional two (2) Small Business IDCs will be considered for award in place of the WOSB and SDVOSB awards (assuming enough highly qualified SB firms are identified). For example, if there are not enough WOSB or SDVOSB highly qualified offerors to initiate negotiations, the total number of Small Business IDCs would increase from three (3) to four (4). Alternatively, if too few WOSB and SDVOSB offerors are determined to be among the most highly qualified firms, the total number of Small Business IDCs would increase from three (3) to five (5). Market research has shown that there is a reasonable expectation of meeting this requirement. While the number of IDC awards to a respective SB business class may decrease depending on the number of most highly qualified firms identified by the Board, the total overall capacity identified in this acquisition strategy will not change.

A sufficient number of firms must be recommended such that at least two (2) most highly qualified firms remain "in reserve" when negotiations commence on the final contract (EP 715-1-7, paragraph 3-10 c., page 3-10). Thus, the evaluation board(s) shall hold discussions such that at least two (2) most highly qualified firms remain in reserve for each solicitation. Following negotiations, the Chairperson will prepare a selection report for the designated selection authority recommending, in order of preference.

Firms that are considered to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services must be recommended under the solicitation that seeks to award IDCs. The report will include a description of the discussions and evaluation conducted by the board to allow the selection authority to review the considerations and basis for recommendations. The selection authority will review the recommendations of the evaluation board and will, with the advice of appropriate technical and staff representatives, make the final selections. The final selections will be a listing, in order of preference, of the firms considered most highly qualified to perform the work. If the firm listed as the most preferred by the selection board is not the firm recommended as the most highly qualified by the evaluation board, the selection authority will provide for the contract file a written explanation of the reason for the preference. All firms on the final selection list are considered "selected firms" with which the KO may negotiate IAW

FAR 36.606.

At the task order level, proposal evaluations of technical, price, and cost analysis will be completed IAW FAR 15.404-1 and EP 715-1-7 Appendix AA. The Government will make use of FFP labor rates, overhead, and labor categories, Independent Government Estimate (IGEs), procurement history, and other relevant factors on a task order basis to determine a fair and reasonable price. Given the large amount of relevant data, there is a high degree of certainty that fair and reasonable prices can be negotiated for each requirement.

e. Acquisition Strategy: SWT plans to solicit offers for A-E IDCs in support of the Master Planning mission. The RPEC Planning Support Center (PSC) is a HQUSACE designated center to engage in and provide enterprise level Master Planning support via signed MOA and approved AOR coordination agreements. As such, the RPEC provides Master Planning support for projects of varying size, complexity, and duration on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD), other federal agencies to include international and interagency, and civil works projects. Projects are geographically located inside as well as outside the SWD AOR, with approved coordination IAW the most current guidance. The IDCs will provide services for the Master Planning Mission Support but will but will include the flexibility to support requirements for A-E services by other Districts where the principles of the Project Management Business Process and Engineering Regulation (ER) 5-1-10 have been met. The contract ordering period is anticipated to be seven (7) years with a five (5) year base period and one two (2) year option period.

The Government will acquire a target of eight (8) A-E IDCs under one (1) MATOC with a total shared capacity of $200M. In accordance with FAR 19.503, Reserves, this acquisition will be advertised under one synopsis as an unrestricted MATOC providing for a Small Business Reserve. A target of five (5) IDC awards will be reserved for small businesses. Additionally, at least three (3) IDCs will be awarded as unrestricted actions.

Selection is governed by the 40 U.S.C 1101 et seq. Chapter 11, Selection of Architects and Engineers (A-E) and requires public announcement of the requirements applying competition based on competence and qualifications of the firms and at fair and reasonable prices. Market research documented in paragraph 5 confirmed enough interest and capability exists to support eight (8) contract awards.

Use of A-E IDC contracts allows for task orders to be issued as individual projects when specific work requirements are identified, and funding is available. Work under each awarded IDC will be carried out via individual task orders IAW FAR Part 36 and EP 715- 1-7. The Project Delivery Team (PDT), consisting of the KO, technical team, and Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) will review all task order requirements individual requirement's scope, scale, complexity, and other considerations of the work elements involved through the use of a Task Order Requirement Notification (TORN) process and task order questionnaire as established by The Operations Order (OPORD) 20-05-19s, IAW FAR 19.504(c), Orders under Reserves and the Brooks Act. Should FAR 19.504(c) and the Brooks Act not be met, the task order will be solicited to all MATOC holders.

The SB reserve will be reviewed for all task orders IAW FAR 19.504(c), Orders under Reserves and the Brooks Act. Should FAR 19.504(c) and the Brooks Act not be met, the task order will be solicited to all MATOC holders. Task orders will be competed IAW the Brooks Act to select the most qualified firm whose IDC will be utilized to award the Task Order. This process will determine which projects (i.e. task orders) are best suited for the respective A-E IDCs based on complexity, demonstrated experience, staffing, past performance, and review of individual Standard Form 330s (SF330). The results of the selection will be documented in an A-E Selection Report and submitted to the KO as part of the contract file. The selected A-E will receive a Request for Proposal (RFP) for each Task Order and prepare a cost proposal that is commensurate with the specific SOW. The proposal is compared to the IGE prepared by the RPEC and the level of effort is negotiated with the respective A-E using known rates and markups established in the IDC. An approved Small Business Coordination Record (DD2579) will be required for each Task Order.

f. Funding: SWT will comply with HQUSACE, Corps of Engineers Resource Management, Finance and Accounting Policy Division (CERM-F) (2019-43) Memorandum, 26 June 2019, Subject: Updated Accounting Policy for Single/Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (SATOC/MATOC). RPEC overhead funding is available to meet the minimum guarantee for the IDC contract awards. Project funding will be obligated by individual task orders and will be provided through general appropriations under the various programs that may utilize these contracts. Funds shall be tracked by the Government project manager to ensure prior coordination and approval with the customer. All task orders shall be fully funded. The type of funding used will be dependent upon the customer

3. Rationale for Consolidation: In order to be determined necessary and justified, the benefits of the consolidated acquisition must substantially exceed the benefits that would be derived from alternative contracting approaches that involve a lesser degree of consolidation, IAW FAR 7.107-2(b). Such benefits may include quantifiable cost savings or price reductions as well as other benefits, regardless of whether quantifiable in dollar amounts, to include quality improvements that will save time or improve or enhance performance or efficiency, reduction in acquisition cycle time, better terms or conditions, or any other supportable benefit. Benefits that are quantifiable are considered substantial if they meet the dollar amounts set forth in FAR 7.107-2(d). If the quantifiable benefits do not meet these thresholds, the approving authority may determine that consolidation is necessary and justified if the expected benefits of the consolidated approach are critical to the agency’s mission success and the procurement strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small business. For this procurement, the quantifiable benefits of consolidation meet/exceed the threshold set forth in FAR 7.107-2(d). See Section 7 analysis below for the benefits of this proposed consolidated acquisition.

4. Applicable Statutes/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. § 657q, Consolidation of Contract Requirement, FAR 2.101, Definitions, FAR 7.107, Additional Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Consolidation, Bundling, or Substantial Bundling, AFARS 5107.107-2, Consolidation, and UAI 5107.107, Consolidation of Contract Requirements.

5. Market Research: IAW FAR Part 10, market research was conducted by the RPEC to determine the extent of potential competition, level of contractor interest, and the overall experience and capabilities of interested contractors within the Master Planning industry (NAICS 541320). A Sources Sought was issued 28 October 2020 with responses due by 8 December 2020. A total of 48 responses were received by the closing date.

As a result, a total of 44 unique responses were evaluated. Based on industry response to the sources sought and PDT analysis, it is anticipated that there will be enough competition among qualified offerors to be able to award the contracts required to meet the RPEC’s master planning mission. The KO concurs with the strategy for this acquisition based on the compilation and analysis of market research results. A summary of the market research is as follows:

Sources Sought Responses: A Sources Sought for the seven (7) year $200M A-E Master Planning Services contract(s) to support master planning work assigned to the RPEC was developed in coordination with RPEC PDT and reviewed and concurred by the SWT and SWD OSBP. Contractors responding to the Sources Sought were required to complete an on-line questionnaire for analysis by the RPEC PDT.

Responses to the questionnaire were analyzed and used to determine if a given respondent can be deemed qualified. Table 2 below identifies and lists the 44 potential offerors that responded to the Sources Sought and their respective business class categories. Firms who were deemed “unqualified” after analysis by the PDT are highlighted in red.

Table 2: List of Firms Responding to the Sources Sought Announcement

Sources Sought Analysis and Summary Results: The Sources Sought asked interested firms to respond to a series of questions and provide relevant information on their capabilities. Results were analyzed by the PDT to determine whether there are sufficient interested and qualified business firms for the acquisition. To be deemed qualified, a responding firm, either SB or LB, must have met at least six (6) of the ten

(10) criteria AND at least one (1) of Criteria 2, 3, or 4 (Criteria 2, 3, or 4 does not have to be in addition to the minimum 6 of 10) from the Sources Sought Survey Monkey questionnaire.

Criteria 1: Able to perform 50% or more of the work.

Criteria 2: Performed A-E Services for Master Planning Projects within SWD Boundaries in past five (5) years, if 'yes' was the provided experience information relevant.

Criteria 3: Performed A-E Services for Master Planning Projects on a military installation in POD in past five (5) years, if 'yes' was the provided experience information relevant.

Criteria 4: Performed A-E Services for Master Planning Projects for a non-DoD Agency in past five (5) years, if 'yes' was the provided experience information relevant.

Criteria 5: Capable of performing or has performed at least 67%, or at least 16 of the 24 identified Master Planning A-E task areas in the last five (5) years.

Criteria 6: Identified greater than "None" (i.e., at least 'Less than two (2) Years') experience as either a Prime or Sub-contractor performing A/E Services for Master Planning Projects.

Criteria 7: Has performed a Task Order with a value of $500k or greater in past five (5) years.

Criteria 8: Capable of successfully managing and performing a single Task Order with a value of $500k or greater.

Criteria 9: Capable of successfully managing and performing $3M or greater total of All Task Orders over a 12-month period.

Criteria 10: Capable of successfully managing and performing at least six (6) or more Task Orders concurrently.

Forty-four firms were evaluated against the criteria listed above. The PDT eliminated 13 companies as “unqualified” for failing to meet the minimum number of criteria based on survey questions for recent or relevant Government experience; failing to complete the survey; or providing incomplete or no response to required sources sought data fields.

Based on the total number of qualified respondents, there continues to be a good level of interest in SWD solicitations from both the SB and LB master planning contractor community.

A summary of PDT findings follows:

Table 3 (below) shows a breakdown of the number of firms by business class category that were deemed qualified for all firms that responded to the Sources Sought.

*Table 3: Sources Sought Analysis Summary Sources Sought Respondent Business Classification

Total Responses

Unqualified Firms

Qualified Firms

LB 12 1 11

SB 32 16 16

Section 8(a) 6 3 3

WOSB 9 4 5

HUBZone 4 2 2

SDVOSB 5 2 3

Note: Some SB firms have one or more disadvantage SB designations, therefore the total number of firms listed by classification does not match the total number of unique respondents shown in Table 2.

Conclusion: Based upon analysis of the market research and in coordination with the SWT OSBP, the PDT has determined there are a sufficient number of qualified firms to warrant one (1) unrestricted synopsis with a SB reserve. The Government will acquire a target of eight (8) A-E IDCs under one (1) MATOC. A target of five (5) will be awarded to the SB Reserve (a target of one (1) Women-Owned SB (WOSB), a target of one (1) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB (SDVOSB) and a target of three (3) SB IDCs) and at least three (3) Unrestricted IDCs to complete the target of eight (8) IDCs.

6. Alternative Contracting Approaches Considered and Rationale for Rejection:

Three (3) approaches, or alternatives, for meeting the RPEC A-E Master Planning’s current and future project execution requirements were considered:

Alternative 1 – Use of A-E IDCs for both CONUS and OCONUS Mission Assigned Projects (Recommended Alternative): This recommended alternative requires competitive IDCs to be awarded and subsequently utilized for each individual A-E Master Planning requirement including those projects which fall within CONUS and OCONUS locations. This approach provides the maximum versatility to not only streamline the acquisition process for individual projects, but also to select the most appropriate A-E contractor for each project when reviewing each awardee’s qualifications, expertise, and TORN responses for preparation of the Selection Board Report for assigned mission partners both CONUS and OCONUS. Issuance of individual Task Orders realizes both a time and significant cost savings over the use of individual contract actions for each requirement, as discussed in Section 7 below.

Establishment and use of various business class IDCs will provide not only a broad availability of expertise and skill set from which projects can be easily executed, these businesses classes will also continuously contribute to the Tulsa District’s and Southwestern Division’s Small Business goals. Moreover, these IDCs will provide the flexibility required to meet the RPEC’s growing customer base for the Master Planning program.

Alternative 2 – Stand-alone Contract for Each Project (Not Recommended):

Utilizing stand-alone contracts for each A-E Master Planning project will result in significant procurement costs for each individual contract plus the time to procure each individual contract. Compared to the issuance of A-E Task Orders, stand-alone A-E contracts will require significant personnel resources to staff source selection boards for every project followed by contracting personnel resources to issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and conduct negotiations for each project. Moreover, stand-alone contracts require significantly longer to procurement lead times when compared to Task Orders. Based on the protracted procurement time for each requirement, costs associated with duplicative acquisition costs and the constrained Government resources, this alternative is not the least cost effective and therefore, not in the best interest of the Government.

Alternative 3 – Combination Use of Replacement In-Kind A-E IDCs and Stand-alone Contracts for Each Mission assigned Project (Not Recommended): This alternative requires a combination of acquisition approaches to support the RPEC’s CONUS and OCONUS Master Planning requirements. In this alternative, it is assumed that approximately 50% of all annual Master Planning contracting actions are for those located OCONUS within the POD AOR. Because utilizing the Replacement In-Kind A-E IDC’s does not allow for OCONUS work to be executed, use of stand-alone contracts for each assigned OCONUS project would be necessary. Utilizing this combination approach for each A-E Master Planning project will result in significant procurement costs for at least 50% of annual task orders. Compared to the issuance of A-E Task

Orders for both CONUS and OCONUS projects, stand-alone A-E contracts will require significant personnel resources to staff source selection boards for 50% of projects and contracting personnel resources to issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and conduct negotiations for each project. Moreover, stand-alone contracts require significantly longer to procurement lead times when compared to Task Orders. The RPEC’s Master Planning Section is the sole provider of services for the Pacific Ocean Division (POD), whose DoD clients have critical Master Planning needs that require the project execution flexibility and has rapidly become the provider of choice for other DoD clients, whose Master Planning requirements are critical to meet DoD-mandated compliance deadlines. Alternative 3 would impact the agency’s ability to quickly and efficiently meet Master Planning mission needs. Effectively and efficiently executing A-E Master Planning projects for existing clients is critical for not only their mission needs, but also for fulfilling the obligations of the RPEC’s Master Planning Section’s various MOAs.

Based on the protracted procurement time for each requirement, duplicative and significant acquisition costs, and constrained Government resources, this alternative does not meet mission operation requirements and is not the most cost effective and therefore, not in the best interest of the Government.

7. Benefit Analysis (15 USC 657q(c)(2)(B) and FAR 7.107-2(b)-(d): This analysis compares each alternative (1-3) discussed above.

Cost Benefit Comparison: Over the course of a seven (7) year contract life, there is a significant cost advantage using the IDC and Task Order approach (the Recommended Alternative 1) over the stand-alone contracts (Alternative 2) or combination of replacement of in-kind A-E IDC and stand-alone contracts (Alternative 3). The majority of work performed by contractors when performing A-E and A-E Master Planning requirements is at their office rather than at a work site, which is different from construction or other services contracts that have personnel and equipment mobilization costs, etc. As such, cost savings and benefits are primarily and more readily calculated on the amount of labor effort expended on procurement and proposal costs. These costs are incurred by both the Government (procurement) as well as the contractor/offeror (proposal) and whenever a requirement is contracted by the Government.

For this Benefit Analysis, the procurement costs for Alternatives 1-3 were calculated by estimating the level of effort required by both the Government and contractors. The Government’s level of effort was calculated by estimating the RPEC’s number of labor hours required for each task multiplied by a constant rate of per hour, then adding to that total the established cost for contracting labor utilizing the USACE SWT/SWF District Contracting Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) rates. Costs were calculated to procure a Non-competed Task Order against an A-E IDC (Alternative 1, the Recommended Alternative), a stand-alone contract via RFP (Alternative 2, Not Recommended Alternative) and a combination of Non-competed Task Order against an IDC and stand-alone contract via RFP (Alternative 3, Not Recommended Alternative).

Assumptions for Cost Benefit Analysis:

1. Workload leveling off to 20 A-E Master Planning Services actions per year

2. Of the 20 actions per year, 50% or 10, represent OCONUS work

3. Utilizing the SWD WBS Contracting Action “Standard” Rates (

4. Utilizing per RPEC labor hour for ease of calculation

5. Stand-alone contracts are less than $10M

Benefit Analysis utilizing A-E IDCs/Task Orders (Alternative 1, the Recommended Alternative) versus Stand-alone Contracts (Alternative 2, Not Recommended Alternative) and Combination of A-E IDCs/Task Orders and Stand-alone Contracts (Alternative 3, Not Recommended Alternative):

As mentioned previously, contractor labor effort must be considered into the cost savings when evaluating the benefits of utilizing the Recommended Alternative of IDCs

The tables above, as supported by the Attachment 1 spreadsheets, demonstrate Alternative 1, the Recommended Alternative, maximizes the cost savings benefits to the Government compared to Alternate 2 and Alternate 3. The use of A-E IDCs to execute Task Orders for the RPEC’s Master Planning requirements conserves a significant amount of annually diminishing Government labor dollars and reduces the contractor’s costs that are passed on to the Government for each executed requirement that can be used for warfighter mission accomplishment.

the seven (7) year period when utilizing A-E Master Planning IDCs. Resources are increasingly constrained, requiring strategic and well-planned use of time, personnel, and budget. The establishment and use of A-E IDCs, the recommended alternative, provides not only the required flexibility to rapidly respond to Master Planning clients’ requirements, but also provides the maximum available benefits to the Government.

Quality (15 USC 657q (2)(3)(A) and FAR 7.107-2(c)(1)): It has been determined that the quality of the product received from either of the alternate approaches would be indistinguishable; a Task Order issued against an A-E Master Planning IDC or a stand-alone contract for an A-E Master Planning project would produce a high quality product, as the IDC awards are made to most highly qualified firms. As discussed more fully below, A-E Master Planning IDCs, the recommended alternative, would provide the Government with the greatest flexibility, efficiency, and cost savings.

Acquisition Cycle (15 USC 657q(2)(3)(B) and FAR 7.107-2(c)(2)): The use of the A-E Master Planning IDCs, the recommended alternative, will provide contracting vehicles by which Master Planning projects can be executed more efficiently and at a greater cost savings by issuing Task Orders than by utilizing stand-alone contracts for each project. Per EP 715-1-7, the typical duration to procure an A-E IDC is 145 calendar days, compared to 37 calendar days for a Task Order; this results in 108 calendar days saved for each project by issuing a Task Order. Assuming 20 projects per year, the 108 calendar days saved by using A-E IDCs translates to 2,160 calendar days saved per year and 15,120 calendar days saved over the seven (7) year period.

Other: In addition to quantifiable benefits, the recommended alternative is critical to the agency’s mission success as it allows the agency to quickly and efficiently meet Master Planning mission needs and it provides for maximum practicable participation by small business due to the SB reserves. Effectively and efficiently executing A-E Master Planning projects for existing clients is critical for not only their mission needs, but also for fulfilling the obligations of the RPEC’s Master Planning Section’s various MOAs.

The Master Planning Section is the sole provider of services for the Pacific Ocean Division (POD), whose DoD clients have critical Master Planning needs that require the project execution flexibility the recommended alternative can provide. The RPEC’s Master Planning Section has rapidly become the provider of choice for other DoD clients, whose Master Planning requirements are critical to meet DoD-mandated compliance deadlines and the recommended alternative will provide the capacity to assist meeting their goals. The recommended alternative not only provides contract vehicles to efficiently and rapidly respond to clients’ needs to meet their mission objectives, but they also support mandated goals that support the warfighter.

Terms and Conditions: Not applicable.

8. Bundling: FAR 2.101(b) defines bundling as –

(1) Means a subset of consolidation that combines two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts (see paragraph (2) of this definition), into a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, or a task or delivery order that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern (even if it is suitable for award to a small business with a Small Business Teaming Arrangement) due to:

(i) The diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified.

(ii) The aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award.

(iii) The geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or

(iv) Any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (1)(i), (ii) and

(iii) of this definition."

(2) "Separate smaller contract" as used in this definition, means a contract that has been performed by one or more small business concerns or that was suitable for award to one or more small business concerns.

(3) This definition does not apply to a contract that will be awarded and performed entirely outside of the United States.

The KO has determined that this acquisition of the most highly qualified A-E master planning services firms for new contracts does not constitute bundling (as defined in FAR 2.101 (1)) because this acquisition does not consolidate two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern. The proposed acquisition strategy/plan to award a target of five (5) IDCs to Small Businesses (including a target of one (1) SDVOSB and one (1) WOSB) comprises 75% of the total capacity provided for contracts suitable for award to small business concerns.

9. Competition in Contracting Act (CICA): The CICA Bundling Principle, as developed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) case law, focuses on whether the combined requirement (new, old, or otherwise) restricts competition, and whether the agency is consolidating or bundling a new requirement unnecessarily. In order to justify CICA Bundling the agency must show "a reasonable basis for why the bundling is necessary to meet the agency need." (Vantex Serv., Inc., B-29041 5, 8 Aug 02 and Outdoor Venture Corp., B-299675; B- 299676, 19 Jul 07). The cost savings achieved through the reduction of duplicated efforts and operational efficiencies can be a reasonable basis for restricting competition where requirements are bundled.

Additionally, the savings and efficiencies that are anticipated to be achieved through this acquisition justify any restriction on competition presented and provide a reasonable basis for this consolidated requirement, which involves the least amount of consolidation necessary to execute the mission. These actions meet the minimum needs of the Government and are not more than required and do not restrict competition unnecessarily, therefore Competition in Contract Act Bundling does not apply.

10. Considerations, facts, reasoning supporting the determination: All facts, considerations and rationales have been addressed previously in this determination.

The DD2579 has been signed by the KO and concurred by the District Deputy, (OSBP) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center Representative. All concur that consolidation of this requirement is both necessary and justified.

11. Summary: Consolidating the Master Planning A-E Services requirement is necessary and justified and will provide substantial benefits to the Government. The quantifiable benefits are substantial in accordance with and exceed the dollar amounts set forth in FAR 7.107-2(d), but also, IAW FAR 7.107-2(e)(1) by providing maximum practical opportunity for small business participation, and the administrative time savings and reduction in effort are all significant in allowing SWT to efficiently procure the services required by RPEC Master Planning.

A MATOC will allow sharing of capacity so that SB will be able to continue to compete for awards rather than having an individual capacity which restricts their ability to compete which was an unintended consequence of using SATOCs. There are significant cost and time savings by using Task Order awards versus stand-alone contract awards. The Government will build better relationships with the firms given the longer performance period and will expend less effort to achieve the same performance result. Therefore, MATOCs are the best solution for meeting the Government’s requirements.

Attachments:

1.

2. OCONUS Access Requirements Information

CENTER/DISTRICT REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE PAGE

The following signatures indicate concurrence with the contents of this document.

PROJECT/REQUIREMENT: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Master Planning Services, Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDCs) in Support of the Southwestern Division (SWD) Regional Planning and Environmental Center (RPEC)

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

CONSOLIDATION MEMORANDUM

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (A-E) MASTER PLANNING SERVICES

INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACTS (IDCs)

IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION (SWD)

REGIONAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (RPEC)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

CONSOLIDATION MEMORANDUM

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (A-E) MASTER PLANNING SERVICES

INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACTS (IDCs)

IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION (SWD)

REGIONAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (RPEC)

DETERMINATION

Upon the basis of the findings above, I hereby determine, pursuant to the authority of 15 U.S.C.§ 657q, FAR 7.107-2, “Consolidation”, and AFARS 5107.107-2, “Consolidation”, that the proposed consolidation of the requirements for A-E Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDCs) for Master Planning Services, and conducted market research demonstrates that consolidation of this procurement to be both necessary and justified and that small business concerns have been taken into consideration IAW 15 U.S.C 657q(C)(1)(E).

ANNEX A – PURPOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS TO OCONUS INSTALLATIONS LOCATED

IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

1.0 General Requirements:

1.1 The information contained in this Annex is current at the time of publication. The Contractor shall check with the appropriate authorities to ensure the most up-to-date information for theater and country clearances; entry, training, and health requirements; and customs and border requirements for travel to all locations identified in Annex A prior to travel. The Contractor shall ensure that all Contractor and Sub-Contractor personnel meet the most current requirements far enough ahead of time to ensure travel can be accomplished on the scheduled date. The Contractor shall inform the COR of significant changes in Theater/Country requirements as soon as they are discovered.

1.2 The Contractor shall comply with all host nation laws – which may include laws that require permits or licenses or the payment of individual or corporate taxes, unless specific exemptions apply – and that no adjustments will be made to the Task Order price based on the Contractor’s failure to comply with host nation laws or its failure to properly price its Task Order proposal on that basis.

1.3 The Contractor shall comply with all applicable host nation laws – any failure to comply with applicable host nation laws will be justifiable grounds for Termination for Default and/or a non-responsibility finding for all future Task Orders.

1.4 All US based contractor employees and associated sub-contractor employees traveling overseas will receive the government provided AOR specific training. The documentation of training completion must be provided to the COR prior to departure.

1.5 All non-local contracting personnel will comply with theater clearance requirements and allows the combatant commander to exercise oversight to ensure the contractor's compliance with combatant commander and subordinate task force commander policies and directives.

1.6 The Contractor shall visit the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Areas of responsibility website:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pacc/cc/areas_of_responsibility.html and check the site for the latest policy and process updates.

1.7 The Contractor shall visit the electronic Foreign Clearance Guide website (https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/fcg.cfm) and follow procedures identified in that guide for access to foreign countries. No adjustments will be made to the Task Order price based on the Contractor’s failure to comply with the eFCG or its failure to properly price its Task Order proposal on that basis.

1.8 52.229-6 Taxes—Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts (Feb 2013)

(a) To the extent that this contract provides for furnishing supplies or performing services outside the United States and its outlying areas, this clause applies in lieu of any Federal, State, and local taxes clause of the contract.

(b) Definitions. As used in this clause—

“Contract date” means the date set for bid opening or, if this is a negotiated contract or a modification, the effective date of this contract or modification.

“Country concerned” means any country, other than the United States and its outlying areas, in which expenditures under this contract are made.

“Tax” and “taxes” include fees and charges for doing business that are levied by the government of the country

Consolidation D&F Attachment 2

OCONUS Access Requirements Information concerned or by its political subdivisions.

“All applicable taxes and duties” means all taxes and duties, in effect on the contract date, that the taxing authority is imposing and collecting on the transactions or property covered by this contract, pursuant to written ruling or regulationin effect on the contract date.

“After-imposed tax” means any new or increased tax or duty, or tax that was exempted or excluded on the contract date but whose exemption was later revoked or reduced during the contract period, other than excepted tax, on the transactions or property covered by this contract that the Contractor is required to pay or bear as the result of legislative,judicial, or administrative action taking effect after the contract date.

“After-relieved tax” means any amount of tax or duty, other than an excepted tax, that would otherwise have been payable on the transactions or property covered by this contract, but which the Contractor is not required to pay or bear,or for which the Contractor obtains a refund, as the result of legislative, judicial, or administrative action taking effect after the contract date.

“Excepted tax” means social security or other employment taxes, net income and franchise taxes, excess profits taxes, capital stock taxes, transportation taxes, unemployment compensation taxes, and property taxes. “Excepted tax” does notinclude gross income taxes levied on or measured by sales or receipts from sales, property taxes assessed on completed supplies covered by this contract, or any tax assessed on the Contractor’s possession of, interest in, or use of property, title to which is in the U.S. Government.

(c)(1) Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the…