DF Consolidation_Redacted.pdf

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CONCRETE REPAIRS TO BOURNE & SAGAMORE BRIDGE

AT THE CAPCE COD CANAL

LOCATED IN BOURNE, MA

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912WJ22B0017

CONSOLIDATION MEMORANDUM

AUGUST 1, 2022

PREPARED BY: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT

FAR 2.101 defines consolidation or consolidated requirement as 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. FAR 7.107-2 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 15 U.S.C. § 657q.

I have reviewed this requirement and associated market research and determined in consistency with 15 U.S.C. § 657q and FAR 7.107-2 that consolidation is both necessary and justified. This approval is made consistently with the approval thresholds set forth in Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5107.170, “Consolidation of Contract Requirements.” My review resulted in the following findings:

1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New England District proposes to consolidate the acquisition of concrete repairs at the Bourne & Sagamore Bridges located at the Cape Cod Canal in Bourne, MA, by utilizing a stand-alone contract. The combined projects have an estimated construction cost of , which includes a . The NAICS code for this procurement is 237210.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROCUREMENT ACTION

2.a. Project Description:

The existing Cape Cod Canal bridges undergo routine maintenance on the bridge deck, with the last contract having been completed in 2010. The maintenance typically includes removing the existing asphalt pavement, repairing the locations of failed concrete on the deck below, and providing a new asphalt wearing course upon completion. In addition to the deck repair work, the Sagamore bridge will also receive some vertical concrete face repair as well as a handful of manhole replacements as the existing manholes are severely deteriorated.

2.b. Acquisition Strategy/Procurement Summary:

An acquisition strategy meeting was held on 20 April 2022 to review contractor responses to the Sources Sought announcement and to determine the appropriate contracting vehicle for this project based on that information. As a result, the team unanimously decided to use an Invitation for Bid small business set-aside contracting vehicle for this project.

This contract is to be procured under FAR 19.5 “Set-Asides for Small Business.”

2.c. Applicability of Consolidation:

FAR 2.101 defines consolidation as –

“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--

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

The concrete repair project scope meets this definition. The work is located at the Cape Cod Canal on both the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, which are two discrete sites located in Bourne, MA, approximately five miles from each other.

2.d. Requirements Being Consolidated: This consolidation combines the concrete repair work at the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge into a single contract.

2.e. Procurement History: This requirement has been procured previously in 2009/2010. The concrete repair work in 2009/2010 was previously procured as one contract action.

2.f. 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. 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). In this procurement, benefits that are quantifiable are ten percent of the estimated contract value, equating to approximately

. If the quantifiable benefits do not meet these thresholds, the approving authority may determine that consolidation is necessary and justified if the benefits are critical to the agency’s mission success and the procurement strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small businesses (FAR 7.107-2(e)(1)).

Utilizing a single stand-alone construction contract to consolidate the requirements for both the locations is necessary to meet mission objectives because it provides for a contracting vehicle that minimizes planning and contract execution costs, shortens contracting lead time, and minimizes schedule risk. It also reduces the in-house labor costs to conduct internal design reviews.

Furthermore, based on the results of market research, the PDT has selected a small business Invitation-for-Bid (IFB) as the procurement type for the consolidated contract. Thus, consolidation provides scheduling, cost, and implementation benefits to the Government, which will not inhibit the ability of small businesses to bid on the project. As such, it is the recommended contracting approach for this project.

3. APPLICABLE STATUES AND REGULATIONS:

15 U.S.C. 657q, FAR 2.101, FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.170-2

4. RESULTS OF MARKET RESEARCH:

The Sources Sought announcement garnered capabilities packages from five different firms. The announcement included the following language:

The Bourne & Sagamore bridges both have areas of deterioration in the concrete decks over the abutments that need to be repaired. The deck within the abutment spans is 9" thick reinforced concrete. The wearing surface is approximately 2" thick bituminous concrete (Rosphalt). In addition to the deteriorated concrete deck surfaces, the existing manholes along the bridge have also deteriorated and need significant repair. The work of this project will mainly consist of removal of the existing pavement down to the concrete deck and necessary repairs to the underlying concrete as needed. Interested firms should note that they will need to take care in removing the existing concrete so as to not damage the rebar. The extent of repair work required for the manholes is still under review. Work must be performed in thirds across the width of the bridge, requiring three phases of construction. Extensive traffic control procedures will be necessary and will require coordination with Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Two work periods will likely be specified: Spring of 2023 and Fall of 2023.

For reference, in 2000 a contract was awarded to replace the concrete parapets, repair sidewalk and curbs, replace waterproofing membrane and bituminous wearing surface on deck and abutments and other miscellaneous electrical work. Additionally, in 2010 a contract was awarded to rehabilitate the concrete deck. In this contract the work included removing the existing asphalt pavement and waterproofing membrane on both abutments and the steel superstructure deck. It also included repairs to the concrete substrate on the abutments as well as repaving the entire length of the bridge with Rosphalt.

None of the firms indicated any challenges to combining the work for both bridges into a single contract; in fact, the two of the three firms rated as “Qualified” by the PDT were registered small businesses. The third was a large business. As such, based on the capabilities packages received, it does not appear that consolidation would limit the type or number of firms capable of performing this work. The PDT recommended a small business Invitation-for-Bid (IFB) procurement for the consolidated contract.

5. ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING APPROACHES CONSIDERED AND

RATIONALE FOR REJECTION:

The only realistic alternative contracting approach would be to issue two separate solicitations for this work, one for approximately (Sagamore) and another for

(Bourne). NAE considered utilizing separate contracts; however, this approach was rejected due to the following factors:

(1) Quality: By consolidating the projects together, it ensures that bridges receive a consistent quality of work and the efficiencies gained in completing one bridge before moving onto the next. This is important as both bridges are heavily utilized throughout the year, especially in the summer months. The local communities and those that travel the bridge are heavily impacted by any construction completed on the bridges. The Government has a responsibility for ensuring the Contractor on this project is capable of doing the work and is able to do so in a timely and efficient manner. By consolidating this contract, the Government is able to complete the work in the most efficient way possible and avoids future hazards which may arise if the deck repairs are not completed in a consistent manner.

(2) Acquisition cycle: Significant schedule savings can be achieved by using the consolidated award approach over the alternative method. The Cape Cod Canal bridges are in difficult locations to work, and therefore only a handful of capable contractors are able to complete the construction work. Given the influx of government projects and spending, each project will be competing for contractor interest. Additionally, only one bridge will be allowed to undergo construction at a time so as to not limit capacity and access Cape Cod. In order to meet the construction sequence requirements and ensure capable contractors are available to complete the work at the time, the Government would need to consider staggering the solicitations. Consolidation allows the District to push through both bridges at once by utilizing a longer period of performance, which avoids a solicitation delay of 6 months or more which would be likely if the projects were designed in sequence. Such a delay will prevent award of both bridges in FY22. Without consolidation, it is estimated that the total schedule for the project would be delayed from at least 6 months to 1 year . Thus, it is imperative that these projects be consolidated in order to avoid the possibility of having both of the bridges an unfavorable bidding environment.

(3) Terms and Conditions: The value of the Cape Cod Canal Bourne and Sagamore

Bridges projects are both estimated to be above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). By consolidating the projects together, the Government will streamline the terms and conditions of the work. There will be one set of plans, specifications and contract requirements for both bridges that are identical and completed under one design effort rather than two separate efforts. This will result in more consistent contractor oversight, work performance, and a better product for the customer.

(4) Cost Benefits:

Contractor Cost Benefits

a. Reduced mobilization and demobilization costs – Approximately (includes contractor’s professional labor & oversight, time on pre-con submittals, logistics, material sourcing, upfront preparation for company to begin (bid proposal, required training certifications, staffing for project, etc.)).

b. Reduced costs due to a lower number of Contractor administrative design submittals – Approximately 85 submittals will require submission for information or approval from the Government. If the contracts were procured separately, each contract would require separate submittals.

The assumed cost to the contractor for each submittal review on average is (+/- 6 hours of time). Therefore, consolidation provides a cost savings.

(5) Government Administrative Cost Benefits

a. Reduced construction oversight costs for Government – Approximately 60 submittals require review and approval by the Government. If the contracts were procured separately, each contract would require separate submittal review. The assumed cost to the Government for each submittal review averages (assumes +/- 8 hours for each submittal review, includes review time, RMS entry, internal & external coordination). Therefore, consolidation provides a cost savings.

b. Reduced contracting administrative costs for one vs. two contracts – Approximately (fee for contracting, technical lead and construction office to prepare and process administrative documents).

c. Reduced design fee costs – Approximately (fee for government to prep a second contract, which includes plans, specifications, internal reviews, documents required by contracting, etc.). Each set of plans and specifications requires reviews by a Technical Lead, designers, section chiefs, the Engineering Chief, a Cost representative, an environmental representative, and possible others. For this project, Structural personnel received alone for their effort. While this figure would not be as high for a duplicate effort, a significant portion would still be required as the project would be staggered and MASSDOT may require a change for traffic control or material specifications. (The above figure is inclusive of the following estimates:

$ TL

$ for Ops Program Manager

$ for CAD $ for Specs $ Cultural Resources $ for Cost

$ VEO

$ for ITR $ for BCOES $ for Engineering Chief $ Structural Eng Chief $ Structural Designer $ for CAD Tech $ for ITR Review $ for BCOES Review $ estimated Ops time $ for Travel to and from site for pre bid site visit

Therefore, based on the aforementioned information, it is estimated that these cost savings are approximately .

In accordance with FAR 7.107-2(d)(3), savings in administrative or personnel costs alone do not constitute a sufficient justification for consolidation of contract requirements unless the cost savings are expected to be at least 10 percent of the estimated contract value. The estimated savings in Government administrative or personnel costs are $ . The total cost of the combined projects is

, which includes a . Cost savings realized by the Government from reduced Contractor costs is estimated above at $ . Thus, the Government expects to save approximately 8.7% of the total contract cost (inclusive of both Contractor savings and reduction in administrative savings).

Since the 10% threshold has not been met, in accordance with FAR 7.107-2(e), the undersigned have determined that consolidation is still necessary, and the procurement strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small business since the solicitation will be set aside for small businesses.

6. BUNDLING

6.a. Definition of SBRA/FAR Bundling:

FAR 2.101 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.

6.b. Applicability of FAR Bundling Definition:

Based on the FAR definition of bundling, this project does not meet the requirements to be considered bundling. While this project does involve consolidation, that consolidation does not make it unsuitable for award to a small business. The solicitation is set aside to small businesses.

6.c. Definition of CICA Bundling:

This doctrine is much broader and does not simply apply to requirements that were previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts but comes into play anytime an agency contemplates combining requirements into a single solicitation that creates the potential for restricting competition. CICA bundling may occur when the contracting activity is competing many large activities together and in so doing, excludes offerors who can perform only one or some of the functions in the statement of work.

6.d. Applicability of CICA Bundling Principle:

This doctrine is not applicable as it does not exclude offerors who can perform only one or some of the functions in the statement of work. The scopes of work for both projects being consolidated are quite similar from a technical perspective. As such, any contractor capable of performing the scope of one project will be capable of performing the other. Thus, it cannot be considered CICA bundling.

7. CONSIDERATIONS AND REASONING SUPPORTING THE DETERMINATION