F06_JOFOC_NAMA_216036_Jeff_Roof SIGNED 3-17-21_1.pdf

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

12795 WEST ALAMEDA PARKWAY

POST OFFICE (P.O.) BOX 25287

DENVER, COLORADO 80225-0287

IN REPLY REFER TO:

NAMA 216036

140P2018C0069

Date February 08, 2021

Subject: JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

FOR MODIFICTION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK

Reference: NAMA 216036: Restoration of Jefferson Memorial Roof and Portico, National Mall and

Memorial Parks, Washington DC; Contract 140P2018C0069

In accordance with FAR 6.301(b) and 41 U.S.C. 3304, the following information is provided:

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition” (JOFOC).

Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 the subject JOFOC is hereby prepared on behalf of the Department of

Interior (DOI), National Park Service (NPS), Denver Service Center (DSC).

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

a. The existing construction services Contract No. 140P2018C0069 (Contract) to Grunley

Construction, Inc. (Contractor) is for repairs and cleaning of damaged stone surfaces, as well as cleaning of the exterior of the Jefferson Memorial Dome, Portico roof and cornices, and other related exterior stone surfaces of biofilm. This action is for approval of a justification for other than full and open competition, to continue the cleaning and repair of the exterior of the building in new areas, through a modification to the Contract.

(1) The type of stone masonry cleaning and other repair work proposed to be added, as well as the means and methods for accomplishing the work, is a continuation of the scope of the Contract;

however, additional work areas are being added to the scope to include the stylobate steps/front steps and upper terrace wall of the building.

a. The type of stone masonry cleaning is to continue removal of biofilm, a unique material that caused permanent dark staining to the exterior of the building. The Contract provides that the requirements for the stone masonry cleaning be done through a performance-based specification. This allows for testing, mock-up, and approval of the contractor’s means and methods through the Request for Information (RFI) process. Generally, RFIs are issued by the Contractor to clarify specifications and means/methods. RFIs for the stone

NAMA 216036 JOFOC – 140P2018C0069 MOD 10

masonry cleaning were reviewed and approved by the Government’s historic preservation specialists and architect/historic preservation consultants. The RFI results were then incorporated into the Contract requirements through a Request for Proposal (RFP) and written modification. Generally, RFPs are issued to obtain pricing to definitize any change orders resulting from the RFIs (or other circumstances as appropriate). The RFI/RFP process is generally described on the Department of Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center (DSC) Workflows public website. https://www.nps.gov/dscw/index.htm

b. The other type of masonry repairs are a continuation of repairs completed in other areas of the building and also involves approved means and methods developed through the

RFI process.

(2) There were no options identified for this additional work in the original Contract.

b. The additional work is required to be completed as a modification to the existing Contract, due to:

(1) The Contract contains performance-based specifications for the work requirements, including for the stone masonry cleaning. Award was made on September 18, 2018. Notice-to-Proceed was issued on January 30, 2019. The Contractor conducted significant testing and 21 mock-ups over a 6-month period for the stone masonry cleaning and masonry repairs. Thirteen (13)

RFI’s relating to cleaning and masonry work were issued by the contractor spanning a seven-month period. These efforts were reviewed by the Government’s technical consultants, including architects/engineers and historic stone preservationists, as well as the Government, including NPS in-house historic preservation specialists.

Approximately one year after award of the contract, RFP 02 was issued on September 3, 2019, to allow the contractor to introduce a solution for removing the biofilm through its unique means and methods, and to proceed to incorporating that into the contract. The means and methods proposed by the contractor added the use of steam to laser ablation, which requires additional technical review and approval in accordance with the specifications. In addition, the laser calibration and operator technique were fine-tuned after an extensive scrutinization process due to the fragile nature of the marble, and those were approved as a means and method. Ultimately a cleaning method combining the use of steam with laser ablation under precise standards was approved. In May 2020, Modification 05 was issued to incorporate the approved means and methods for stone masonry cleaning (in addition to other changes).

Based on the incorporation of the contractor’s unique means and methods into the contract through the process outlined above and Modification 05, they are the only source able to match the consistency of stone masonry cleaning.

(2) The proposed modification is for the stone masonry cleaning, including removal of biofilm, by the same means and method as approved under Modification 05, on additional areas of the exterior of the building. Since the issuance of Modification 05, the contractor has successfully performed the work and the stone masonry cleaning has met the expectations of the

Government in accordance with the specifications. The Contractor is required to use the same means and methods already approved under the Contract in cleaning these other areas. The special expertise gained by the Contractor and its subcontractors in executing the stone masonry cleaning work under the Contract for the last eight months is required for this additional work.

https://www.nps.gov/dscw/index.htm

(3) The specifications call for approval of the technical qualifications of the subcontractor’s historic preservation specialist who is responsible for quality control, as well as the technically-trained laborers performing the stone masonry cleaning. Significant effort was required on the part of the Contractor to assemble and provide specialty training for the right team that met these standards. The knowledge and experience gained on this site with the existing team and carrying it forward for the future work is an invaluable asset.

(4) The approved equipment utilized on this project was specially ordered after the testing and mock-up process resulted in numerous pieces of equipment were rejected as inadequate and the testing and mock-up period was completed. The Powerlaser Vulcan 500 Laser and the

Tech INOX steamers had significant procurement lead times and legal hurdles to overcome to be brought into the United States and there is a strong likelihood that this equipment would not be able to be procured or otherwise available, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the Global supply chain. Utilizing the same team will allow for a seamless progression through the end of the work with the equipment already on-site and paid for by the

Government under this Contract.

(5) The difficulty in matching the stone masonry cleaning results delivered by the Contractor, through its own means and methods and as approved by the Government, presents a high level of risk for success for cleaning the new areas. The lengthy technical process for approval of the Contractor’s unique process as well as success in performing the work, demonstrates that the Contractor is the only one capable to perform the new requirements.

(6) A significant portion of the additional work requires use of scaffolding that is in place at this time. The project is approximately 95% complete, so the scaffolding will be demobilized and will not be available for use by another contractor. Mobilizing new scaffolding would result in significant cost and time delays in completing the additional work.

(7) The exact nature of the biofilm is not fully realized by the historic preservationists, so cleaning of the material from the building with significant time gaps between those cleanings would produce uneven results in the appearance of the building.

(8) The crack repair work also required approval through the RFI, testing and mock-up process.

The additional work for making these repairs is required to use the same approved processes.

(9) The project is approximately 95% complete. It is now apparent at this stage of the Contract that completing the additional work will result in consistent overall appearance and appropriate restoration for long-term protection of this significant Government asset.

(10) In addition, budget constraints, and other unforeseen events, would result in unanticipated escalations in cost to accomplish this work by another means.

c. In accordance with FAR Part 6, the Contract was awarded after full and open competition.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value).

The additional work is primarily for more stone masonry cleaning in new areas on the building, increasing the work areas under the Contract by approximately 25%. The other stone and crack repair work is similar to repair work that has been ongoing under the Contract. The Contractor must use approved methods in executing the additional work in accordance with the specifications and Contract as modified. The estimated value of this action for this modification is $3,000,000.00.

4. Identification of the justification for other than full and open competition (see 41 U.S.C.

3304(a)(1); FAR 6.302-1) and the supporting rationale, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. If the contracting officer uses the logical follow-on exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial contract and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).

a. Exception: FAR 6.302-1 – Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services will

Satisfy Agency Requirements. The order must be issued on a sole-source basis because the required construction services are available from only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

b. Rationale: DSC is seeking approval for an exception to the Competition in Contracting Act

(CICA) requirements for issuance of a modification for additional work that substantially increases the scope of the original Contract. The justification for using other than full and open competition for this additional work is based on the following rationale:

(1) At this point of the project, the Contractor is the only firm that has an approved means and methods and technical expertise for performing the work requirements. The Contractor has a complete understanding and technical expertise to ensure that the work is performed consistent with the Specifications and methodology for stone masonry cleaning, having developed the means and methods to perform the work, having that approach approved through Modification to the existing contract, and performing the work successfully.

(3) It is not feasible for another firm to either use the Contractor’s methodologies to complete the additional work; or perform the work by developing its own stone masonry cleaning means and methods without significant added risk that the results would be inconsistent, the stone would be damaged, or significant delays would occur. Procuring this work outside of this

Contract will result in unnecessary added costs for new specification development, significant testing and approval processes, and inconsistent results that are unjustified.

(4) The performance of the work by any contractor other than the Contractor would result in a substantial duplication of other costs and time. If the additional work is not performed seamlessly through the current period of performance by the current Contractor, the process of the current Contractor de-mobilizing the scaffolding and a new contractor remobilizing it at a later date would add approximately five – six months for this work. In addition, changing contractors would result in additional significant costs for demobilization and remobilization, delays, technical consultants, and security for the site.

(5) The technicians that perform the work through the subcontractor are specially trained for this project. There is no guarantee that the team that is in place at the current time would be available at a later date after demobilization of the current work. In fact, the contractor has indicated that it is highly likely that the team that is in place at the current time would not be available at a later date after demobilization of the current work.

(6) At this point in the project and after significant design and technical effort in establishing an approved stone masonry cleaning method and oversight by the Government, the Contractor has now demonstrated superior technical capability, performed satisfactorily, and proposed and negotiated fair and reasonable pricing for the Award and modifications to-date.

Continuing on with this Contractor results in lowest cost and risk, in terms of consistency of the stone masonry cleaning, quality of the work, performance, and project success to the

Government. Conversely, not continuing with this Contractor poses additional significant cost and risks that are unnecessary and cannot be supported or validated.

5. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

Pricing will be determined fair and reasonable. The proposal will be determined to be technically acceptable and pricing will be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract

Specifications section for approval of modifications.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification.

a. In accordance with AP&P 06-01 REV 1 para 4 (ii) - Once it is determined that one of the exceptions to full and open competition truly exists, the contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the validity of the justification and conducting a market survey by publishing a sources-sought synopsis in the Government-wide Point of Entry in accordance with DIAR 1406.303-70 or preparing a justification detailing why publication was precluded.

The market survey was posted on March 5, 2020 in accordance with DIAR 1406-303-70 – 4.) The notice provides the intent to solicit and negotiate with only one source under the authority of

6.302. In accordance with FAR 5.203(a), the NPS will allow a 15-day response time from the date the notice was posted before issuance of award for construction services. All responsible sources are provided the opportunity to submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, which shall be considered by the agency. All responses will be evaluated, and the evaluation will be documented in a Determination and Finding to be incorporated into this justification.

c. Pursuant to FAR 5.201 this JOFOC will be publicized within 14 calendar days after issuance of the modification and remain posted for a minimum of 30 calendar days.

7. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the justification for other than full and open competition before any subsequent acquisition for such services is made.

DSC will continue to comply with the competition requirements under CICA.

8. The contracting officer’s certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

Refer to attached Certifications and Approvals.

9. Evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying the Government’s minimum needs or requirements or other rationale for the justification for other than full and open competitions) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.

Refer to attached Certifications and Approvals.

10. A written determination by the approving official that one of the circumstances in 6.302-1(a)(2) applies to the order.

Refer to attached Certifications and Approvals. Approval of this justification constitutes written determination that the approving official(s) concur that the circumstance described in paragraph 4 and allowed per the FAR apply to this order.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVALS

Technical Certification:

In accordance with FAR 6.303-1(c), I certify that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate:

Signature:

Print Name: Jason Crownholm Title:

Date:

Project Manager

Approvals in accordance with FAR 6.303-4:

Contracting Officer Certification:

I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief:

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Anne LaPorta Title: Contracting Officer

Approvals:

>$25K – One Level Above Contracting Officer:

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Pamela Mault Title: Branch Chief

>$150K – Chief of the Contracting Office:

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Lori Irish Title: Division Chief

>$700K – Bureau Procurement Chief/Bureau Competition Advocate

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Title: