LSJ_250-12.pdf

LSJ No. 250-12

Limited Source Justification

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of Section 201 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 501) Multiple Award Schedule Program, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.401, and is justified by the following facts and rationale required under FAR 8.405-6.

(1) Agency and contracting activity.

Identification of Agency: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate

Contracting Activity: DHS Office of Procurement Operations (OPO), Science and Technology Acquisition Division (STAD)

(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

STAD contemplates the award of a one-year task order under the General Services Administration (GSA) MOBIS Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) to Navigant Consulting, Inc.

to perform a research Portfolio Analysis and Review at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

The following contractor is the awardee:

Company Name Address

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

90 Park Avenue

10th Floor New York, NY 10016

(3) Description of supplies/services.

DHS S&T has developed a repeatable Portfolio Analysis and Review program, capable of reviewing all research project and program investments and producing a strategic assessment.

The Portfolio Analysis and Review process enables S&T management to better align S&T technical efforts with department requirements and customer needs. It improves transparency, awareness, and the overall integrity of S&T’s technical efforts. It helps the technical efforts to better reflect the mission and vision of the organization. The Portfolio Analysis and Review has been conducted at S&T for several years, and the Under Secretary for Science & Technology has obtained approval from the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand it to another DHS component’s research activity (USCG) as a pilot.

The scope of this effort is to expand the Portfolio Analysis and Review to the designated DHS component, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). S&T Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) personnel will facilitate Navigant’s efforts at USCG. The scope of work consists of two phases: Phase I Base Review and Phase II Transition Process. In Phase I Base Review, the contractor will develop the Portfolio Analysis and Review pilot program, tailoring the process and methods already used in the S&T Portfolio Analysis and Review to the USCG environment. The contractor will conduct the initial Portfolio Analysis and Review. In Phase II Transition Process, the contractor will transition the pilot Portfolio Analysis and Review conducted at USCG to a fully repeatable, annual portfolio analysis process that can be implemented at other DHS components (research focused or otherwise). The objective is to produce a repeatable process that the S&T, or other contractors that it may competitively hire, can implement. The contractor will tailor legacy Portfolio Analysis and Review documentation and finalize the documentation. The contractor will incorporate lessons learned and make necessary changes to optimize the process’s outcomes. The transitioned process should be flexible enough to accommodate variations in other components and agencies’ operational environments. The contractor will develop a Standard Operating Procedure document, essentially a roadmap and how-to manual for repeating the portfolio analysis process.

The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for this effort is $250,000.00.

(4) Identification of the justification and the rationale.

This acquisition is being conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program in accordance with FAR 8.405-6, “Limited sources justification and approval.”

Specifically, the Limited Source Justification (LSJ) rationale is FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) that, “In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order...” The previous GSA FSS task order was HSHQDC-10-J- 00167, which was competitively awarded.

The follow-on, limited source award to Navigant is necessary, because Navigant has significant sunk costs in gathering information, developing the assessment framework, and designing the format and scope of its strategic assessment. S&T leadership has briefed the relevant Congressional oversight committees and subcommittees on the methodology and how S&T is using it to prioritize projects and allocate budget. Another consulting firm could in theory perform a similar assessment of the research portfolio. However, it would be a new effort, not a follow-on to the previous effort. A new effort by a new performer would be substantially more expensive than conducting the USCG pilot as a follow-on to the previous effort. Navigant’s sunk costs would need to be duplicated. A new effort would also impose substantial governmental administrative costs, as the S&T facilitators from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) would have to devote much more time to briefing the new performer and familiarizing themselves with its processes. The Navigant engagement managers have already been granted suitability to work on-site at S&T periodically. While Navigant or a new performer would both have to get suitability at USCG, a new performer’s personnel would additionally have to get suitability at S&T. Much work on the pilot will continue to take place at S&T. Finally, the follow-on, limited source award is necessary so that Navigant can produce a strategic assessment and recommendations for USCG research that is on a common basis (meaning using the same processes, weighted scoring model, and in the same output format) as what has already been done at S&T. This allows for budgeting decisions and value judgments to be made on a common basis.

(5) Determination by the ordering activity contracting officer that the anticipated order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d).

The contracting officer will make a fair and reasonable determination based on comparing the contractor’s quoted rates with the GSA MOBIS FSS’s rates. The GSA contracting officer has already made a fair and reasonable determination when the MOBIS schedule contract, including its labor rates, was established. The contracting officer will determine whether the proposed level of effort is reasonable based on: (1) comparison with the government cost estimate; (2) comparison with the level of effort on the previous task order HSHQDC-11-J-00167; and (3) input from the technical representative.

(6) A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results, or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

On 8/16/12 the contracting officer posted a notice of intent (to conduct a procurement in accordance with FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C), “...logical follow-on to an original FSS order...”) to Federal Business Opportunities in order to comply with the FAR 5.201 synopsis requirement. The notice outlined the scope of the work and the contracting officer’s intended acquisition strategy. The notice invited capability statements from interested parties until 8/30/12. The full text of the notice is located in Section I, Tab E of the contract file. No responses to the notice were received.

(7) Any other facts supporting the justification.

None

(8) A statement of actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that preclude the agency from meeting the requirements of FAR 8.405-1 and 8.405-2 before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made.

The intent of this procurement is to produce a transition plan and explanatory documents that will enable DHS S&T government personnel and other current and potential future support contractors duplicate the Portfolio Analysis and Review process. The government intends to continue to perform the Portfolio Analysis and Review in the future. If other contracts are awarded to do so, they will be competitively solicited using this procurement’s work product as a basis.