Fair Opportunity Exception (Redacted).pdf

Rev.:5/2024

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

STENNIS SPACE CENTER

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Description of the action being approved: This justification documents the basis for issuing an order under the Southeast Regional Architect and Engineering (SERAE) IDIQ contract using an exception to the Fair Opportunity process.

Description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs: This action is a firm-fixed price, for designing the demolition of the central portion of B1100. The demolition design will include the central section of a three-story office building and a one-story multi-use section located west of the office building. These structures are standalone sections connected to the north and south wings by expansion joints. The design must ensure that both the south and north wings remain fully operational during the demolition process. Additionally, the design includes interior modifications to the first floor of the south wing of B1100, relocating existing amenities from the soon-to-be-removed one-story section. A new plaza will also be designed to create a quadrant between B1100's south wing, B1111, and B1103. The total estimated price of the proposed order is $0,000,000.00 and the estimated period of performance is 180 calendar days.

Identification of Exception to Fair Opportunity:

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A), The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B), Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C), The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D), It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E), For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) In accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). When setting aside orders for small business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in part 19 apply.

Supporting Rationale:

RS&H, the original design firm, has just completed the initial design work under the SERAE task order 80SSC023FA018 on May 24, 2024 and thus possesses intimate knowledge of the building and its systems. Rehiring the original design firm on a sole-source basis is in the interest of economy and efficiency. RS&H's familiarity significantly reduces the learning curve typically associated with a new design firm coming on board. Consequently, the firm can efficiently implement the required modifications, leveraging the understanding gained during the initial project. This efficiency not only saves time but also reduces costs associated with additional design iterations and potential errors that a new firm might encounter. It's important to note that re-engaging the same firm for modifications aligns with the logical follow-on exception under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as all SERAE design contractors were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original design order. This continuity of effort logically follows from the original contract scope, period of performance, and value, thereby justifying a sole-source re-engagement based on the firm's qualifications and prior involvement.

Determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The contracting officer (CO) shall determine that the anticipated cost of the resultant task order including all items described in this justification will be both fair and reasonable prior to the award.

Other Facts:

As part of the SOW development, S3 provided a construction cost estimate. The estimated design cost, which is 10% of the projected construction expenses, exceeds the IGE considerably if RS&H does not undertake the project redesign.

A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made:

The CO will continue to review changing conditions to ensure all SERAE contractors are afforded a fair opportunity to provide offers for future requirements.

Demolition Re-Design for 1100 Center Section

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

SIGNATURE PAGE

I certify that the requirements and technical data contained herein, and which form a basis for this justification are accurate and complete.

______//SIGNED//______ 7/10/24

Rodney Valdes Date Technical Representative

I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Based on the content herein, it is determined there is substantial evidence to justify this exception to fair opportunity.

______//SIGNED//______ 7/11/24

Jason Edge Date Contracting Officer

APPROVAL:

Based on the information provided in this justification, and as the approving official, I have determined that the exception at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) applies to the order.

______//SIGNED//______ 7/11/24

Beth Bradley Date Competition Advocate Stennis Space Center