Consolidation Memo.pdf

CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION

FOR Hill AFB CMCC DEMOLITION W9123822Q0030

(As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

JUN 22

RATIONALE

1. Consolidation may provide substantial benefits to the Government. However, because of the potential impact on small business participation, before conducting an acquisition that is a consolidation of requirements with an estimated total dollar value exceeding $2 million, a written determination shall be made that the consolidation is necessary and justified in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 657q, after ensuring that--

(a) Market research has been conducted;

(b) Any alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation have been identified;

(c) The determination is coordinated with the agency's Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization or the Office of Small Business Programs;

(d) Any negative impact by the acquisition strategy on contracting with small business concerns has been identified; and

(e) Steps are taken to include small business concerns in the acquisition strategy.

2. Introduction: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District plans to solicit offers for Hill AFB Consolidated Mission Control Center (CMCC) demolition services and has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this requirement to be both necessary and justified. FAR 2.102 defines consolidation as:

(1) 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 (ii) requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites; or;

(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.

3. Description of the Procurement Action: The work encompasses demolishing six (6) buildings at Hill AFB, UT. The demolition will include, but is not limited to, the abatement/removal of asbestos containing materials (ACM) and other regulated materials (ORM), disconnect/capping of utilities, water main reconfiguration, disposal of all debris materials, and grading for proper drainage. The proposed contract type for this action will be firm-fixed price. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this

(As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

JUN 22

action will be 238910, Site Preparation Contractors, with a size standard of $16.5 million. The estimated value of this requirement is . This requirement will be competed as a total small business set-aside. The period of performance for this requirement will be one (1) year from date of award. There will be no option years included in this requirement.

The applicable map, Hill AFB Map of buildings,attached map shows the placement of all 6 building that will be demolished in this requirement. Buildings 521, 522, and 526, are clustered on one area of Hill AFB, buildings 483, 1229 and 1836 are all in different areas on the base. The demolition of all 6 of these buildings will be included in the single contract, with the four discrete sites on the base. Given the multiple discrete locations of the buildings, this action is defined as a consolidated requirement. The customer has requested these 6 buildings be on one contract to ensure a single contractor is responsible for all the sites, reduces multiple mobilizations, and ensures that multiple contractors aren’t delayed over the limited available laydown sites near each of these locations. This requirement will be funded by FY18 MILCON funds, that are expiring at the end of FY22.

4. Results of Market Research: The Project Manager, Julie Moullet provided five (5) small business contractors that she knew were capable of performing this type of work. All 5 contractors were called, and given a general description of the work, and asked if they were interested, and 2 contractors confirmed their interest, the other 3 did not return calls or emails.

Therefore, we are confident that at least two (2) quotes will be received for this work.

Additionally, all 5 busineses were verified that they were small businesses under the applicable NAICS code.

5. Alternative Contracting Approaches and Rationale for Rejection:

Alternative Advantages Disadvantages

Alternative 1: Four Stand-Alone “P” Type Contracts:

1. Allows for maximum competition for each separate procurement.

2. Allows more contractors the opportunity to submit proposals for Government work.

3. Competitive pricing.

1. Four separate contracts to manage.

2. Inefficiencies in schedule, logistics, administration and management of contracts.

3. Less contractor efficiencies due to learning curve for contractors new to Government work and/or sites.

4. Increased costs to the Government to award four stand-alone contracts;

development of RFQs, Source Selection Factors development, evaluation boards, reviews and contract awards.

5. Greater costs to contractors for proposal preparation.

(As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

JUN 22

6. Longest procurement lead time needed in project schedule.

6. Consolidation Benefit Analysis:

As explained in FAR 7.107-2(d)(1) Consolidation Benefits, (1)Benefits that are quantificable in dollar amounts are substantial if individually, in combination or in the aggregate the anticipated financial benefits are equivalent to- (i) ten percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) if the value is $94M or less; or (ii) five percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) or $9.4M, whichever is greater, if the value exceeds $94M.

(2)Benefits that are not quantifiable in dollar amounts shall be identified and otherwise quantified to the extent feasible. (3)Reduction in administrative or personnel costs alone is not sufficient justification for consolidation unless the cost savings are expected to be at least 10 percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) of the consolidated requirements, as determined by the SPE or CAO ( 15 U.S.C. 657q(c)(2)(B).

Consolidating this requirement will result in a reduction of administrative costs as well as other savings of resources such as time, materials and manpowermoney. Consolidating this action into one requirement versus four separate contracts will lower the contracting labor cost by about $60,000.00. For the demolition of buildings in one discrete location, contracting services cost $20,000.00. If this requirement was separated into four separate purchase orders, the total administrative costs would be $80,000.00. Small business participation will not be affected by consolidating this requirement, and market research has revealed that at least two small businesses are interested in completing this requirement.

7. Bundling:

a. Definition. FAR 2.101 defines bundling as consolidating two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, 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 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 acquisition does not meet the definition of bundling as it was not previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts.