Consolidation DnF 22R0007_Redacted.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Control No.: DAL-22-7808

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ALASKA DISTRICT

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS CONSOLIDATION MEMORANDUM

INDEFINITE DELIVERY ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES CONTRACT(S) FOR

HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTES (HTRW)

PRIMARILY VARIOUS LOCATIONS, ALASKA

W911KB22R0007

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 defines �Consolidation or consolidated requirement� as follows: �Consolidation or consolidated requirement �

(1) Means a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy� (i)Two or more requirements of the Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers are solicited; or (Services) [�], and that,

(2) �Separate contract� as used in this definition, means a contract that has been performed by any business, including small and other than small business concerns.�

I have reviewed this requirement and associated market research and determined that consolidation, in accordance with 15 U.S.C 657q, FAR 2.101, FAR 7.107-2, and AFARS 5107.107-2, and UAI 5107.170-3 is both necessary and justified. My review resulted in the following findings.

FINDINGS

1. Introduction: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Pacific Ocean Division (POD), Alaska District (POA) has a requirement for investigation, planning and design for cleanup of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW), debris and other environmental contaminants at primarily various locations in Alaska, to include areas in the Pacific Rim.

The work is anticipated to include all phases of A-E HTRW Alaska District. This Acquisition Strategy is for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery architect-engineer (IDA-E) HTRW services solicitation with a total shared capacity of $245 Million (M). Solicitation, W911KB22R0007, will be offered as a partial small business set aside under NAICS 541330, Engineering Services ($16.5M size standard) with stated intention of reserving at least four (4) awards to Small Business firms of any category with a target of eight (8) awards total. This HTRW requirement has been divided into two general requirements, which are, task orders with an estimated value of $1.5M or less, and task orders with an estimated value over $1.5M. Each award will have a base ordering period of seven (7) years with no option periods. Task orders will be firm fixed-price (FFP), based on A-E qualifications and issued as performance-based services. Therefore, based on this and the determination that the overall magnitude of this $245M requirement cannot be met by a total small business set aside, the Contracting Officer determined use of a partial set aside to be appropriate.

2. Description of Procurement Action:

a. Project Description: The USACE, Pacific Ocean Division (POD), Alaska District (POA) has a requirement for investigation, planning and design for cleanup of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW), debris and other environmental contaminants at primarily various locations in Alaska, to include areas in the Pacific Rim. The work is anticipated to include all phases of A-E HTRW, including chemical sampling; resource and regulatory agency coordination and compliance for specific sites and projects; community relations; developing conceptual site models; performing preliminary assessments; site investigations; remedial investigation/feasibility studies; geophysical investigations, debris inventory, and drum characterization; performing human health and ecological exposure/risk assessments; and other tasks related to the investigation and characterization of HTRW and other environmental contaminants (including asbestos, lead-based paint, per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), etc.). Most projects will be located in arctic and subarctic locations, including some in geographically remote and undeveloped areas featuring harsh environmental conditions.

Anticipated areas of required A-E HTRW labor categories include but are not limited to: Program Management; Project Management; Chemistry; Civil Engineering; Environmental Engineering;

Geological Engineering; Hydrogeology; GIS/CADD expertise; Regulatory Expertise; and Risk Assessment.

b. Procurement History: POA currently has two (2) IDA-E HTRW MATOC contracts for like services in Alaska and the Pacific Rim, one unrestricted MATOC Suite and one total small business set-aside, with an unrestricted capacity of $72M and a small business capacity of $48M over a base period of five (5) years. As of December 2021, the current SBSA A-E HTRW contract pool has only $100K in shared capacity remaining and the Unrestricted A-E HTRW contract pool has $2.8M in shared capacity remaining; planned projects and options on existing task orders will consume the remainder of the contract capacity for both pools prior to the anticipated award date for this services acquisition in FY22Q4 or FY23Q1.

Over the past 10 years, POA has also had in place three (3) IDA-E HTRW contracts for like services in Alaska, each with a capacity of $12M each with base period of five (5) years, no option years; three (3) contracts for like services with shared capacity of $30M; and one small business (1) contract with a $5.65M capacity. The contracts were each fully used to capacity, and each has expired between December 2015 and January 2020.

The following table shows procurement history for the POA HTRW A-E program from over the past 5 years.

Table 1- Procurement History

Acquisition Vehicle

Contractor Name

Busin ess

Type Project Description

W911KB19D0005

AECOM

Technical Services, Inc.

Large $25.1M Various HTRW projects

(over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB19D0006

Jacobs

Engineering Group Inc

Large $18.4M Various HTRW projects

(over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB19D0007

NORTH WIND-

EA JV, LLC

Large

$12M Various HTRW projects (over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB19D0008

Stantec

Consulting Large

$1M Various HTRW projects (over 5 year ordering period)

Services Inc.

W911KB17D0017

Environmental Compliance Consultants, Inc

SDVO

SB,

HUBZo ne

$10.5M Various HTRW projects (over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB17D0018 Sundance-EA II 8(a), WOSB

$8.4M Various HTRW projects (over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB17D0019

Ahtna

Solutions, LLC 8(a)

$13.9M Various HTRW projects (over 5 year ordering period)

W911KB17D0020

Brice

Engineering, LLC

8(a) $12.3M Various HTRW projects

(over 5 year ordering period)

c. Acquisition Strategy: This Acquisition Strategy is for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery architect-engineer (IDA-E) HTRW services solicitation with a total shared capacity of $245 Million (M).

Solicitation, W911KB22R0007, will be offered as a partial small business set aside under NAICS 541330, Engineering Services with stated intention of reserving at least four (4) awards to Small Business firms of any category with a target of eight (8) awards total. FAR 19.502-4 allows a Contracting Officer to set aside a portion of a multiple award contract for small business when i) a total set-aside is not appropriate, and ii) the requirement can be divided into distinct portions and iii) two or more responsible small businesses are expected to submit on the set aside portion of a This multiple award task order contract (MATOC). This HTRW requirement has been divided into two general requirements, which are, task orders with an estimated value of $1.5M or less, and task orders with an estimated value over $1.5M.

Therefore, based on this and the determination that the overall magnitude of this $245M requirement cannot be met by a total small business set aside, the Contracting Officer determined use of a partial set aside to be appropriate. FAR Clause 52.219-7 �Notice of Partial Small Business Set-Aside� will be part of the RFP. This means that for this acquisition solicitation, small business concerns may submit offers and compete for both the non-set-aside potion and the set-aside portion. The solicitation will identify the small business set-aside portion as individual task order requirements estimated at $1.5M and below. A small business may potentially submit an offer and receive an award under both the unrestricted portion and under the set-aside portion. Each award will have a base ordering period of seven (7) years with no option periods. Task orders will be firm fixed-price (FFP), based on A-E qualifications and issued as performance-based services.

Table 2- Planned Acquisition

Planned

A-E HTRW

MATOC

Shared Capacity

Geographic Area

Set Aside Target Number of Contractors

A-E HTRW

Services

$245M Primarily Alaska with

POD AOR

Only

UNR 4

SB 4

The Federal Government selection of A-E firms is governed by the Brooks A-E Act (Public Law (PL) 92-582), hereby referred to as �Brooks Act�, which declares it to be the policy of the Federal Government to announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services and to negotiate contracts for A-E HTRW services based on demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required and at fair and reasonable prices. In accordance with USACE Acquisition Instruction (UAI) 5136.601-3-100, professional A-E services acquisitions will be procured under the Brooks Act, the provisions outlined in FAR subpart 36.6, the procedures provided in EP 715-1-7, and Directors� memorandum, �Updated Procedures for the Selection of Task Orders on Architect-Engineer IDCs,� dated 14 April 2021.

By notice through SAM.gov, the Government will announce its intent to procure these A-E HTRW Service IDCs. The Government intends for the announcement to result in one MATOC, which will encompass a target of eight (8) awards. In accordance with FAR 16.500, the statutory multiple award preference does not apply to A-E contracts subject to FAR Subpart 36.6. These will be replacement contracts for contracts W911KB17D0017 thru W911KB17D0020 and W911KB19D0005 thru W911KB19D0008 (see Paragraph A 1.2. Procurement History for more details).

The USACE POA will acquire these A-E HTRW services in accordance with FAR 37.102(a)(1)(i) and 40 U.S.C.1101. The selection board will review Standard Form (SF) 330s and will select the most highly qualified A-E firms. Once the most highly qualified firms are identified using FAR Subpart 36.6 evaluation procedures, USACE POA will look to negotiate and award a contract to those firms, with a target of eight (8) awards, provided they submit fair and reasonable rates for the duration of their respective MATOC award. The USACE POA will also follow FAR Subpart 36.6 and the Task Order Requirement Notice (TORN) process for each task order as the goal of the Brooks Act is to ensure the most highly qualified firm is selected to perform each proposed project. So, if there are many different types of projects performed under these IDCs, the Brooks Act requires the agency to determine that the selected firm is the most highly qualified to perform each of those projects.

d. Requirements Being Consolidated: As stated above in section 2. b. Procurement History, a full range of A-E HTRW investigation, planning, and design for cleanup of HTRW, debris and other environmental contaminants is required primarily within the State of Alaska, as well as, within the POD AOR. POA currently has two (2) IDA-E HTRW MATOC contracts for like services in Alaska and the Pacific Rim, one unrestricted MATOC Suite and one total small business set-aside, with an unrestricted capacity of $72M and a small business capacity of $48M over a base period of five (5) years.

e. Funding: Indirect District Overhead funding will be available to meet the minimum guarantee for each HTRW IDA-E award with a target of eight (8) awards. The type of funding used in each task order will be dependent upon the customer (Army, Air Force, FAA, NOAA, USCG, etc.). Each contract will have a minimum guarantee amount of $10K applicable to the entire contract base period of seven (7) years.

f. Rationale for Consolidation: As defined by FAR 2.101, �consolidation [�]� means the use of a �[�] solicitation to obtain offers for a single contract or a multiple award contract or task or delivery order to satisfy two (2) or more requirements of a Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to, or performed for, that Federal agency under two (2) or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers [are now] solicited.� In accordance with FAR 7.107-2, any consolidation of requirements with an estimated total value exceeding $2M must be determined by the approval authority as necessary and justified. The policy regarding contract consolidation, per 15 U.S.C.

§ 657 q(b), states that, �The head of each Federal agency shall ensure that the decisions made by the Federal agency regarding consolidation of contract requirements of the Federal agency are made with a view to providing small business concerns with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors in the procurements of the Federal agency.� The proposed strategy for the HTRW IDA-E contracts supports the expressly stated policy of the aforementioned statute, which is to provide small businesses with opportunities to participate in Federal contracts, both as prime contractors and subcontractors. Per the FAR definition of consolidation, this planned acquisition, HTRW A-E MATOC tools, meets the definition of consolidation due to the shared total contract capacity for this planned acquisition being greater than previous contracts.

For acquisitions over $94M, substantial benefits quantifiable in dollar amounts of at least 5%, should apply to this HTRW MATOC; notwithstanding at least 5% substantial benefits, if such cannot be clearly quantified, consolidation is necessary and justified when, like for this HTRW services acquisition, the expected benefits are critical to the agency's mission success; and, also the procurement strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small business.

With the increased capacity for IDA-E HTRW MATOC and plan for four (4) small business awards, this acquisition will provide the possibility for small business to participate for a greater amount than $48M as on the current IDA-E HTRW MATOC. The proposed MATOC approach will set aside all task orders with an estimated value of $1.5M for the small businesses in the MATOC of which four (4) awards will be planned for small business. Task Orders with an estimated value of over $1.5M will be available to all businesses in the MATOC including the small business firms and other than small business firms. In addition, large business firms will have small business subcontracting goals which will further increase opportunities for small businesses.

Although this HTRW A-E acquisition is planned as multiple award higher in value than previous multiple award contracts for similarly performed requirements, the MATOC approach remains the most effective tool for A-E HTRW requirements and will continue to provide multiple small businesses opportunities to successfully perform as prime contractors and as subcontractors. In FY21, POA awarded 61.9% (or $232M) of all POA programs to small businesses, exceeding the POA overall SB goal. Additionally, for FY21, POA awarded 68.2% (or 602) of the total contract actions to small businesses. The POA intends to continue to achieve their SB goals, in part, by awarding four (4) HTRW IDA-E contracts to qualified SB firms under this planned acquisition.

When considering the current and planned increase in the A-E HTRW project requirements for the next seven (7) fiscal years and the quantifiable benefits of consolidation that meet the threshold set forth at FAR 7.107-2(d)(1)(ii), the Government will realize at least 5% substantial benefits in terms of both internal Government costs, as well as costs to customer for A-E HTRW acquisitions. The most substantial benefit is in the Government and Customer savings by using a vehicle with pre-selected highly qualified A-E HTRW firms with established labor category rates. The manhours for USACE POA to accomplish a MATOC A-E Task Order is significantly less than the labor hours to conduct a standalone A-E acquisition, from 1,005 to approximately 220.

A primary benefit, not quantifiable, in utilizing a MATOC is that awardees are much more likely to spread their operating expenses across more projects when they have a greater expectation of receiving multiple projects over a set ordering period. This generally reduces each project's individual cost, especially for projects at the same location. Although not specifically quantifiable, the A-E HTRW procurement history and market research have indicated that on standalone procurements, price proposals generally tend to be higher than the Government estimate(s) (likely due to increased unknowns with administration of Government requirements, as well as mobilization/de-mobilization expenses). Further, more affordable and competitive task order proposals for level of effort may also be some benefit realized related to contractor offered labor estimates pricing in the MATOC approach as there will be competition for each task order ensuring A-E firms within the MATOC will likely provide more effective approach to under any socio-economic small business category.

b. Impacts of Consolidation on Small Business. This consolidation would have no adverse effect on small businesses. Based on the market research results, and to compliment the current POA SBSA HTRW IDA-E MATOC, POA has determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to solicit this replacement HTRW A-E MATOC acquisition with a planned partial Small Business Set Aside to obtain the largest response from the most qualified firms and provide the most competitive opportunity for small businesses as prime and subcontractor(s). The market research report, along with the DD Form 2579 Small Business Coordination Record, were coordinated with the USACE POA Small Business Professional and Small Business Administration Alaska Office. The market research supported the Contracting Officers determination to continue with this procurement as a Full and Open Competitive A-E HTRW acquisition with an established Partial Small Business Set Aside in accordance with the FAR and resultant solicitation.

5. Alternate Contracting Approaches Considered and Rationale for Rejection: In coming to the conclusion to use a partial Small Business Set Aside within the A-E HTRW MATOC IDA-E strategy to satisfy multiple HTRW A-E requirements, planned or unplanned, POA considered: a) Standalone "C-type" contracts; and, b) Issuance of separate SBSA and separate Unrestricted MATOC. The intent of this analysis was to address alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation, or no consolidation.

a. Alternative 1: No Consolidation- Standalone �C� Type Contract. An alternative contracting approach considered during establishment of this planned acquisition, was for USACE POA to issue multiple standalone �C� type contracts for all A-E HTRW requirements planned or unplanned for FY23 to FY29. This approach is most feasible when time, resource, and cost constraints are primary factors in the acquisition and effectively meeting A-E HTRW requirements. Using project-specific "C" type contracts has been considered.

(i) Quality: There are no advantages or disadvantages in terms of quality in selecting this alternative since contractors would be required to accomplish the work to the same level of quality.

(ii) Acquisition Cycle. Schedule savings associated with using task orders under MATOC HTRW IDA-E approach as opposed to new standalone contracts offers significant opportunity-cost savings. A shorter acquisition lead time increases the ability for POA to effectively and timely meet the program requirements, and limits costs to the customer related to weather, logistics, and other type of challenges with working in often remote locations of Alaska. Requests for execution of most A-E HTRW projects are typically received by POA the latter part of an FY 3rd or 4th quarter. Late project priority determinations by customers and corresponding late delivery of funding, over which the POA has no control, necessitate procurement strategies that accommodate tight schedules that can be accomplished before the year-end, while funds are still available for obligation.

These externally imposed end-of-year procurement schedules are most successfully addressed by the streamlined acquisition procedures provided under FAR Part 16.5 where there is no requirement to advertise a project for 15 days, or to provide offerors 30 days to submit a proposal. A "C" type procurement requires upwards of 140 days to award.

(iii) Cost. With an approximate plan for 200 A-E HTRW acquisitions, the cost for standalone in time and labor would adversely affect efficiencies in meeting the A-E HTRW program successful and within budget, with an approximate cost of $31.04M overall to conduct standalone procurements. Accordingly, if POA is constrained to conducting A-E HTRW under standalone "C" contracts, any requirements that are presented in an FY 4th quarter would be at significant risk for award before funds cease to be available for obligation. Current Government staffing levels cannot sustain the mission through issuance of single-project solicitations. This approach would entail significant cost to the Government to procure, negotiate, and administer multiple contracts. Standalone "C" type contracts require approximately four (4) to five (5) times the amount of in-house labor from acquisition initiation, award, and contract administration than the issuance of MATOC task orders once a base award is created. Based on anticipated needs, the average task order will range from $100K to $20M. Lastly, the project-specific standalone contract approach would impose significant costs on the contractor community for proposal preparation to respond to many project-specific solicitations instead of one (1) solicitation for an HTRW A-E MATOC awards for a possible seven (7) year ordering period.

(iv) Terms and Conditions. It is not anticipated that the Government will secure better terms or conditions by selecting this alternative.

(v) Other Benefits. One benefit of this alternative is additional opportunities for more than one contractor since multiple contracts (possibly more than eight (8)) would be awarded to meet each A-E HTRW requirement, rather than a target of eight (8) anticipated under the A-E HTRW MATOC approach. However, as a practical matter, there is actually little to no benefit in this regard, as with a target of eight (8) awards permits enough highly qualified contractors to support meeting the A-E HTRW POA mission sufficiently and effectively

(vi) Conclusion. This alternative approach is rejected because it does not meet the cost and time requirements for most HTRW A-E projects. While the project-specific solicitations are unlimited in size, they are extremely demanding in terms of manpower resources to develop. Acquisition requirements for A-E HTRW services acquisitions have increased over the past ten (10) years such that even the most aggressive schedule for a project-specific standalone "C" type contract requires at least six (6) months to execute depending on dollar magnitude. The volume of HTRW A-E projects anticipated over the next several years demands a more flexible approach of operation such as this planned A-E HTRW MATOC.

In addition, the funds type for the planned requirements are typically O&M annual funds, adding schedule constraints for any standalone "C" type HTRW A-E procurement.

b. Alternative with No Consolidation: Use of Two (2) Separate MATOC Suites � Small business and Unrestricted with Separate Shared Capacity. Another contracting alternative would be to issue the A-E HTRW exactly the same as prior and current tools, with two (2) separate combined solicitation/synopsis announcements � one (1) for total SBSA and one (1) unrestricted without any set-aside with same shared capacities of $72M and $48M, respectively, of current MATOC tools. This is the alternative POA has used in the past; therefore, no consolidation would be applicable.

(i) Quality. A high-quality product would be received by choosing to use either a standalone "C" contract or the proposed MATOC approach. The difference in the quality of the ultimate product received from any alternative method versus the proposed consolidated MATOC approach would not likely be significant; however, under the MATOC IDIQ approach, POA will have increased ability to efficiently develop quality standards that meet both POA and customer expectations. With the MATOC approach and a limited number of contractors, the initial quality standards established at contract outset will be more likely to transfer to future requirements through application of lessons learned by MATOC holders and subcontractors. This approach is more likely to have prime contractors develop an effective management process for HTRW requirements, that will meet or exceed Government expectations. MATOC holders know that competition exists and will likely strive to provide a competitive price and quality product.

(ii) Acquisition Cycle. Under this alternative, POA would be required to solicit and award two separate contracts. The time required to solicit, award and administer two (2) MATOC tools is 330 days per solicitation and award; whereas, with one (1) MATOC Suite even with a target of eight (8) awards only one 330 day timeframe is required. Future task orders can be processed in approximately 45 days.

(iii) Cost. The cost to solicit, award and administer two (2) MATOC tools is about $1.24M in in-house labor, so with establishing just one (1) larger shared capacity vehicle than two

(2) or more, the cost remains as only $1.24M.

(iv) Terms and Conditions. It is not anticipated that the Government will secure better terms or conditions by selecting this alternative.

(v) Other Benefits. One benefit of Alternative 2 is faster processing time for individual task orders under the Unrestricted MATOC. With the recommended consolidation, POA may receive responses to the Task Order Requirement Notice from a target of eight contractors on acquisitions over $1.5 million rather than just four unrestricted firms on a single Unrestricted MATOC.

(vi) Conclusion. This alternative would be effective, except for the marked increase in A- E HTRW requirements expected for POA A-E HTRW program between FY23 and FY29.

This requires a tool for POA with greater total capacity than $120M. The cost and time to solicit, award and administer two (2) MATOC tools is 330 days per solicitation and award;

whereas, with one (1) MATOC Suite even with a target of eight (8) awards only one 330 day timeframe is required. Each establishment of a MATOC suite costs about $1.24M in in-house labor, so with establishing just one (1) larger shared capacity vehicle than two (2) or more, the cost remains as only $1.24M. Another disadvantage is that with this method can leave capacity unused and cause requirements to be solicited via other methods. For example, if there is $1M in capacity remaining on the total SBSA and $2M remaining on the unrestricted when a requirement comes in that needs $2.2M in capacity, neither tool would be used. That requirement would have to be solicited as a �C� type contract rather than a Task Order under the MATOC. With the new acquisition strategy, there would not be a set capacity for SBSA or capacity for Unrestricted, it would be a HTRW A-E capacity, and the task order would be set aside appropriately based on the requirement and IAW FAR 19.504(a). Lastly, similar to the use of project-specific "C" contracts, this alternative is more costly with regard to the labor and time required to procure, negotiate, and administer multiple contracts.

c. Summary of Alternatives: The analysis summary table below reflects the estimated total pre-award/award time required to award one standalone "C" type contract, and other vehicles, in comparison to a MATOC IDA-E. These hours/days are based on standard labor hours developed by Contracting for FY22 procurements, along with historical average procurement support costs.

Summary of Alternatives

Table 5- Summary of Alternatives

Selected Alternative

Advantages Disadvantages

One Consolidated Contract (MATOC with Partial Small

Business Set Aside)

1. Quality: High

2. Acquisition Cycle: MATOC- 330 days or less, Task Orders- 45 days

3. Cost: Lowest

4. Other Benefits: small businesses able to compete on all task orders

1. Terms and Conditions:

No difference

Alternative 1 Advantages Disadvantages

No Consolidation- Standalone �C� Type Contract

1. Quality: Average to High

2. Other Benefits: potential of more than the target of eight businesses to participate

1. Cost:

Highest

2. Acquisiti on Cycle: 140 days

3. Terms and Conditions:

No difference

Alternative 2 Advantages Disadvantages

Use of Two (2) Separate MATOC

Suites � Small business and

Unrestricted with Separate Shared

Capacity

1. Acquisition Cycle: MATOC- 330 days or less, Task Orders- 45 days

2. Cost: Low

3. Other Benefits: shorter time to process task orders for Unrestricted portion.

1. Terms and Conditions:

No difference

2. Other Disadvantages:

potential to leave unused capacity

d. Bottom Line. POA�s proposed use of a single consolidated contract for HTRW A-E Services in Primarily Alaska with POD AOR provides the greatest benefits to the Government. It ensures that the Government will be able to procure the most highly qualified A-E firms with the ability to issue task orders in the most efficient amount of time at the most reasonable cost to the Government. The alternative approaches are significantly more costly and require a longer acquisition lead time.

6. Bundling Analysis: Bundling in accordance with (IAW) FAR 2.101 and 7.107, and 15 U.S. Code 657q is not applicable to this planned acquisition.

a. Definition. FAR 2.101 defines bundling as consolidating two (2) 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 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 (i) through (iii) of this definition.

b. Applicability of FAR Bundling Definition. This planned A-E HTRW acquisition does not meet the definition of bundling since the Government will be procuring this requirement via full and open with exclusion of sources as a partial Small Business set-aside, with a total target of eight (8) awards, with four (4) small business awards planned. The definition of bundling does not apply because the consolidated requirements are not unsuitable for award to small business concerns. Small business concerns will have the opportunity to propose under the small business set-aside, and as sub-contractors to other than small business concerns.

7. Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) Bundling The CICA bundling principle, as developed by Government Accounting 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-290415, August 8, 2002 and Outdoor Venture Corp., B- 299675; 8-299676, July 19, 2007.) By consolidating contract requirements, this acquisition strategy will restrict competition, but only to the extent necessary to efficiently meet the minimum needs of the government. The rationale outlined in paragraph 5 of this document makes clear that this level of consolidation is necessary to meet the minimum needs of the Government and does not restrict competition unnecessarily. Indeed, as further discussed above, consolidating these requirements may lead to further competition.

8. Considerations, Facts and Reasoning Supporting the Determination: This strategy for consolidation as necessary and justified was coordinated with Kathy Kinnett, POA Small Business Professional. Ms. Kinnett agreed with the proposed acquisition strategy and coordinated with Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center Representative (PCR) approval via email. All concur that consolidation of this requirement is both necessary and justified. The signed DD Form 2579 is attached to this Consolidation Determination and Findings document.

9. Summary: Consolidation of HTRW A-E services requirements into a single contract will provide the greatest benefit to the Government and ensure timely execution of necessary investigation, planning and design for cleanup of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes (HTRW), debris and other environmental contaminants at primarily various locations in Alaska, to include POD AOR. The quantifiable benefits of consolidation vs no consolidation, is $24.26M or approximately 10% of the estimated contract value, which exceeds the standard in FAR 7.107-2(d)(1)(i) and are further supplemented by the qualitative benefits.

Therefore, consolidation of HTRW A-E services into a single contract is necessary and justified.