JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL.docx

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

CONTRACT ACTION FOR

AIR FORCE ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENT SUPPORT

I. CONTRACTING ACTIVITY

II. NATURE AND/OR DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION BEING PROCESSED

Request approval of this justification for use of other than full and open competition in satisfying this Secretary of the Air Force Acquisition Integration requirement. The contract vehicle for this action will be a new Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with capability for Task Orders to be Firm Fixed Price or Labor Hour. Period of Performance (POP) will be One (1) Base Years plus four (4) one-year options from the date of signing or when the program ceiling is reached, which ever occurs first.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUPPLIES/SERVICES REQUIRED TO MEET THE AGENCY’S NEEDS

In 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) launched an initiative aimed at fostering an organizational culture of innovation in the Air Force. Based on successful Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) approaches in the private sector, such as Lean, Six Sigma and Process Reengineering, the Air Force effort emphasized the institutionalization of a mindset geared toward being smarter about the way its business is done—in every field, at every level, from start to finish.

The overarching objective of this acquisition effort is to support the strategic alignment of the Air Force acquisition enterprise and foster Continuous Process Improvement efforts to make the AF acquisition enterprise more effective and efficient. The Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21) Office was established to provide top-level guidance and training for the overall Air Force process improvement efforts. In addition to the AFSO21 efforts, the Air Force (AF) Senior Acquisition Executive (SAE) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Integration (SAF/AQX) are leading efforts to continuously improve business practices and to develop the workforce for the broader acquisition community. Specifics of this effort are captured in the USAF Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP) which was signed by the CSAF and SECAF in May 2009. One of the primary shortfalls identified in the AIP is the training and education of the acquisition workforce. In response to the CSAF and SECAF’s direction in the AIP, the Air Force is making a concerted effort to improve the quality and quantity of training available to Air Force acquisition personnel. The USAF requires the contractor to develop and deliver accredited, graduate-level courses, which is consistent with the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) standard for ensuring educational quality. These courses must address current and emerging issues in the area of DoD and government business, with particular focus on military acquisitions and aerospace activities.

The Air Force established the Integrated Lifecycle Management (ILCM) Executive Forum as a venue to better support the total life cycle of AF weapon systems. To support the decisions considered by this forum, the Air Force requires on call academic and practical acumen including lifecycle business management, aerospace management, continuous process improvement for services, and research capabilities covering the entire life cycle of weapon systems and focusing on business best practices, innovation, and workforce/leadership development.

The AF requries the personnel, technical expertise, security, and facilities necessary to accomplish research, analysis, and course development and course instruction to support the AFSO21 efforts. AFSO21 seeks to establish an AF culture that consistently and successfully draws upon the best Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) practices to increase mission efficiency and effectiveness. Research and analysis will cover the latest CPI methods, including Lean, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, and Process Re-Engineering. The development and delivery of education and training materials includes business and management sciences such as organizational transformation, change management, process reengineering, best practices, lean techniques, CPI and disciplines such as industrial engineering, engineering management, financial management and operations research.

To facilitate the accomplishment of individual task orders, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) may authorize the use of Government facilities and equipment such as various Air Force computer facilities, technical libraries, and other facilities. The COR shall specify and approve contractor access to these facilities and equipment on an individual task order basis.

IV. STATUTORY AUTHORITY PERMITTING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 USC 2304(c), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a) (2) (iii) and (FAR 6.303). Only one responsible source and no other supplies and services will satisfy agency requirements.

V. DEMONSTRATION THAT THE CONTRACTOR’S UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS OR NATURE OF THE ACQUISITION REQUIRES THE USE OF THE AUTHORITY CITED ABOVE (APPLICABILITY OF AUTHORITY)

The University of Tennessee has developed extensive, highly specialized experience over the past nine years providing support to the Air Force and DoD with continuous process improvement efforts supporting AFSO21 initiatives, making it uniquely qualified to satisfy these requirements. UT has developed and continues to teach multiple AF standard CPI courses across the Air Force. UT supports all phases of the certification process, which includes classroom instruction, in the field experience, and follow-on mentoring. Most prominently, UT developed and currently instructs the Level II Master Process Manager Course. Level II certification qualifies Air Force personnel for CPI leadership of AFSO21 initiatives can take up to a year to complete. Additionally, this contract will standardize the advanced Level III Master Process Manager course for senior leadership of enterprise level CPI initiatives and mentoring qualifications. This builds on the foundation of the work completed under the previous contract.

UT has developed and is instructing many other short courses on the AFSO21 certified CPI methods including GO/SES Orientation, Colonel and Senior Civilian Leadership, “8 Step” Problem Solving course and workshop, Strategic Alignment and Deployment course and workshop, and Train the Trainer courses (to develop organic training capabilities). UT has also developed and is instructing multiple functionally specific CPI courses for Contracting, Performance Based Services program management, and Performance Based Logistics concepts. The AFSO21 mission is to eliminate waste and non-value added tasks throughout the Air Force to increase our efficiency and effectiveness. These courses are training our personnel to execute that mission.

During the proceeding contract, the University of Tennessee was directed to create a National Defense Business Institute (NDBI) to address acquisition and life-cycle management issues. The NDBI was designed to access the expertise of faculty and subject matter experts across a broad range of institutions (public, private, corporate, and government) and leverage them to address leading-edge research problems, develop applied solutions, and integrate the findings into policy and education & training curricula. The need for the NDBI was based on the complexity of the defense acquisition and other management processes, the multi-disciplinary nature of modern business, and the benefits to be derived from integrating the best practices from across government and private industry. Because of its national reputation in conducting research, developing education and training programs based on industry best practices in both the defense and non-defense sectors, and partnering with both public and private institutions, UT continues to be well postured for managing and sustaining such an institute.

UT leveraged ongoing and planned partnerships with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), the UT Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Aerospace/Defense Clearinghouse at Tennessee (AD TN). The NDBI has gone on to conduct multiple studies in direct support of SECAF and CSAF on contractor indirect costs and program control. When the Air Force was directed to develop a Chief Management Officer (CMO), the nominated CMO called on the NDBI to assist in bounding the scope of the new CMO organization and targeting the focus of his duties. NDBI has also begun developing a comprehensive exercise for acquisition program managers to simulate the decisions and program consequences of program management. As a result of the highly specialized expertise developed and the research conducted, the NDBI is ideally suited to continue providing cutting edge research on improving Air Force business practices.

The SECAF’s 2008 Strategic Plan identified “Acquisition Excellence” as one of the top five priorities for the service. The details for addressing this priority were subsequently documented in the Acquisition Improvement Plan, which was signed by the SECAF and CSAF. Not awarding this effort to the University of Tennessee would result in an unacceptable lapse in support to an activity that is directly supporting the expressed priorities of the SECAF and CSAF.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS MADE TO ENSURE THAT OFFERS ARE SOLICITED FROM AS MANY POTENTIAL SOURCES AS DEEMED PRACTICABLE FAR6.302 c (2) requires agencies to request offerors from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. However based on the market research discussed in paragraph VII below, the University of Tennessee is the only source able to perform the requirement with all the features outline by the scope of the AF unique mission. Therefore, requesting offers from any other sources is not practicable under the circumstances.

VII. MARKET RESEARCH.

AFDW/A7K & SAF/AQC exhausted all possible research and has found no other offeror that can meet our need. In our research we posted two sources sought, called potential offerors, and conducted one-on-one via teleconference. We contacted RACE, Cyintech, Deloitte, Booz Allen, LMI, and A.T. Kearney Public Sector & Defense Services LLC. ncumbent’s capability statement shows that they are capable to meet the government’s needs. One respondent’s capability statement failed to demonstrate the company’s ability to meet the requirement as it is stated in the PWS; additionally the respondent was not an accredited institution. The other respondent’s capability statement showed a limited ability to meet the government needs. The Government held a teleconference with the respondent to ensure that they had the technical ability, but their technical expertise proved to be limited. Although they do have a team member that is a university that can provide the accredited courses required, the university’s Dean stated that the university would not serve as the prime. This represented a great source of concern for the Government, since Government contracts with a prime and not a subcontractor. Therefore, the Government classified the respondent as a non-accredited institution. University of Tennessee is the only source we were able to find that meets the needs of our unique requirements.

During the market research the the source selection team was not able to identify any other services or agencies with an existing contract for this type of requirement. We searched through the PPIRS, FEDBIZOPPS, acquisition.army.mil, and acquisition.navy.mil and did not find any other organizations with the need for this type of service. The University of Tennessee has a long track record of performing research, designing and delivering courses, and providing advice and assistance within the cost and schedule constraints. UT is able to leverage previous investments in the NDBI and other existing infrastructure to provide cost savings to the government.

VIII. DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE ANTICIPATED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE Prices will be compared to previous orders, commercial market prices, and GSA schedules. The contracting officer will insure all prices pertaining to the modifications of these contracts are determined fair and reasonable. Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs), if applicable, will be reimbursed at cost in accordance with the JTR/FTR, as specified in the Contract Line Item. The result is a competitive cost favorable to the USAF.

The Government has 38 months of cost, schedule and technical experience under an existing contract with UT. In this time, UT has established a track record of performing within negotiated task budgets. Labor categories, labor rates, budgeting and billed costs are well understood; accounting systems and processes are in place and proven through 9 major task orders and nearly 30 individual sub-tasks with detailed cost data. Given the years of experience working with UT, the government is confident that the proposed number of hours, labor rates, and labor categories will be comparable and reasonable.

IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKET RESEARCH CONDUCTED AND THE RESULTS, OR A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS MARKET RESEARCH WAS NOT CONDUCTED As described in Section VI above, market research was performed by posting a Sources Sought notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.FedBizOpps.gov) on 16 Nov 09. The University of Tennessee was determined to be the only vendor capable of meeting these requirements.

In addition to the response from UT, the Government received a response from RACE and Cyintech. RACE is a non-profit partnership of industry and academia, while Cyintech is a commercial consulting firm specializing in business process reengineering and process improvement.

Upon review of the capability statement provided by RACE, they were determined to be unable to provide the capabilities required to satisfy the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement.

Cyintech’s capability statement similarly did not demonstrate the capability to satisfy the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement.

X. ANY OTHER FACTS SUPPORTING THE USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Without continuous support, a gap in service between the end of the current contract and the start of useful support from a new contractor, awarded from a competitive acquisition, would prove extremely detrimental to the Air Force’s mission. Market research showed that no other source is able to provide the level of support currently being provided without incurring a significant learning curve to gain adequate knowledge and experience.

This effort requires support from a contractor who not only possesses deep expertise in tools and techniques like Lean Six-Sigma and Business Process Reengineering and deep understanding of Air Force acquisitions, but also is academically accredited and is able to provide nationally acceptable academic transcripts reflecting course hour achievements of each student. UT’s familiarity with Air Force acquisitions, aerospace business practices and the AFSO21 concepts and its customers makes then uniquely capable of satisfying the needs identified under this effort. The Air Force’s market research activity did not generate statements of interest from any other contractors with the technical knowledge of the AFSO21 program, the necessary Air Force background, and the ability to provide the required accredited graduate-level courses to support this effort in the manner necessary to accomplish the mission.

XI. LIST OF SOURCES, IF ANY, THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION

Three vendors expressed interest in the acquisition: The University of Tennessee, Cyintech and RACE.

XII. A STATEMENT OF THE ACTIONS, IF ANY, THE AGENCY MAY TAKE TO REMOVE OR OVERCOME ANY BARRIERS TO COMPETITION BEFORE MAKING SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITIONS FOR THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES REQUIRED The highly specialized services provided by the incumbent will continue to be required for the foreseeable future. The need for research and analysis in the areas of business and management sciences will continue into the future. To reduce the amount of contracted support, the government is transitioning a significant amount of course instruction to organic sources. As part of the tasks on the current contract and on the proposed contract, UT is/will providing training (Train the Trainer) to teach government personnel to conduct course instruction.

XIII. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION

The Contracting Officer certify that this document is both accurate and complete in accordance with (FAR 6.303-2(a)(12)).

XIV. TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS PERSONNEL’S CERTIFICATION

The Technical Representative certify that the supporting data contained herein is accurate and complete in accordance with (FAR 6.303-2(b))

COORDINATION AND APPROVAL DOCUMENT

CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: AFDW/A7KS

PROGRAM NAME: Air Force Acquisition Improvement Support AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C 2304 (c) (1), as implemented by FAR 6.303-1

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST: $44,816,321.00

TYPE J&A: Individual

Lt. Col Daniel Ward, COR/QAP, SAF/AQX Project Lead/Technical Representative

COM: (703) 253-5613

Fabiola Bellevue, USAF Team Lead, Secretary of the Air Force Support Branch (A7KS) AFDW Acquisition Division

COM: (202) 767-1488, DSN: 297-1488

Capt Andrew Nordin, USAF Chief Committee Review, AFDW Acquisition Division

COM: (202) 767-8107, DSN: 297-8107

Edward D. Ramras, USAF, GS-15 Legal Review, AFDW/JA

COM: (240) 857-6475, DSN: 857-6475

Natalie A. Sitkowski , NH-IV, DAF Chief, AFDW Contracting Office Air Force District of Washington Division (AFDW)

COM: (202) 767-8021, DSN: 297-8021

Colonel Vincent Napoleon, USAF Chief, Contracting Division Competition Advocate

COM: (240) 857-4631, DSN: 857-4631