A16_JOFOC_2.pdf

FWS Form 3-0051 (Rev. 5/12/2021) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (JOFOC) - OVER SAT

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

Acquisitions Operations

1. Agency and Contracting Activity (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1)).

3. Description of Supplies/Services (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3)).

2. Nature/Description of Action (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2)).

In accordance with FAR 6.302, the proposed contractual action is pursuant to the statutory authority identified in section 4 of this document. This template is required for actions over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) (unless the procurement is acquired as a limited source IAW FAR 8.405-6 or is an Exception to Fair Opportunity IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)).

Instructions: The information in the text boxes are provided as sample language or to indicate a needed fill-in. Sample language should be removed from the final document. All text boxes require information and shall not be left blank.

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other than Full and Open Competition (FAR 6.303-2(b)(4)).

(check one)

Authority FAR Coverage Application 41 U.S.C. 1901 FAR 13.501 Only one responsible source using

Simplified Acquisition Procedures (above SAT but below $7M)

41 U.S.C. 1903 FAR 13.501 Special emergency procurement authority

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1) FAR 6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1) FAR 6.302-1(c) Application for brand-name descriptions

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(2) FAR 6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3) FAR 6.302-3 Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental or research capability; or expert services

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(4) FAR 6.302-4 International Agreement

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(5) FAR 6.302-5 Authorized or required by statute

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(6) FAR 6.302-6 National Security

41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(7) FAR 6.302-7 Public Interest

5. Demonstration of Contractor’s Unique Qualifications (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)).

6. Description of Efforts Made to Maximize Competition (FAR 6.303-2(b)(6)).

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7)).

8. Description of Market Research Conducted (FAR 6.303-2(b)(8)).

9. Any Other Supporting Facts (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)).

Program / Project Officer

13. Contracting Officer Certification and Approval: (All Values) FAR 6.304(a)(1)

Based on the above justification, I hereby certify that the circumstances of this contract action deem only one source reasonably available and approve the use of sole source acquisition procedures for this purchase.

Contracting Officer

10. Listing of Interested Sources (FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)).

11. Actions Taken to Remove Barriers to Competition (FAR 6.303-2(b)(11)).

12. Technical/Requirements Certification: FAR 6.303-2(c)

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

During construction, the construction contractor may discover design deficiencies or request for design clarifications. Under normal circumstances, deficiencies and clarifications are attributable to the Engineer of Record. If awarding to a firm other than KPFF, the other A-E would be required to coordinate with KPFF to complete the CM; therefore, the CO would have to determine if the deficiency or clarification was attributable to KPFF, the other firm or both. This would cause longer delays since extra steps could be needed to resolve the deficiency.

A different firm would be unfamiliar with the plans and specifications; therefore, they would incur higher risks when pricing design services. As an example, they would not know what submittals would be required because they did not create the submittal register. In addition, if design issues were to arise during the course of construction, the firm would have to reach out to KPFF for support in resolving the issues.

A review of the industry code of ethics indicates that professional engineering organizations prohibit others from assuming the role of Engineer of Record for designs performed by others, without first notifying the design engineer. Article III, Section 7, paragraph a. of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers states:

Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.

The purpose of these procedures is to provide an engineer, whose design is being reviewed by another engineer, an opportunity to provide comments or explanations for technical decisions. This will allow the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design, in framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client. This provision of the NSPE Code suggests the owner-client benefits by retaining the original design engineer as the Engineer of Record due to the familiarity / knowledge of the design.

Text5: A notice of intent to sole source was posted to beta.sam.gov for 15 days. No sources responded.

Due to this code of ethics requirement another A-E firm would need to fully develop their own set of construction documents. The cost for this effort would be equal to the funds already spent under contract with KPFF for the development of the existing contract documents. These A-E services for the Hanalei NWR – Phase 3 – Emergency Design and Permitting for Repair of Existing Intake with KPFF has a contract value of $212,287.00. In addition to the cost of development of a compete separate set of construction documents the effort would take at a minimum 4 months to complete.