FOE B341 Fire Alarm.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

Is this a brand-name justification? D Yes � No

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan? D Yes � No

Contracting Activity: 90th Contracting Squadron/PKAB

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: F 1 Y3DA6079A001

Program Name (and Program Element, if applicable): PKAB B341 Replace Fire Alarm System

Estimated Cost/Price of the Order (including options): Total Contract: $630,640.63 (Orig $283,218.00 + Mod 02 $347,422.63)

Type Program (see AF FARS 5302.101 for definitions): D PEO Program � Other Contracting

Fair Opportunity Exception: FAR 16.505{b){2){i), subparagraph □ (A) 0(B) � (C)

Type of Determination: � Individual D Class Expires: [ click and select]

Click here for instructions to complete the boxes below.

(1) Contracting Activity:

90th Contracting Squadron (90 CONS/PKA), F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, 82005.

Contracting Officer: Liezel C. McIntyre

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

0(D) 0(E)

This requirement is for a Firm Fixed Priced Task Order Modification. The intended awardee is FRMACC FA251720D0009 NASCO with a logical Fair Opportunity Exception (FOE) to current TO FA461325F0040 (B341 Replace Fire Alarm System). The approval is for a continuation of construction services estimated at $347,422.63, bringing the total contract value to $630,640.63. The actions involves extension of the fire suppression system from the original scope to the south side of the facility, to the north side, basically doubling the square footage covered. Primary action is to provide public safety and protection of property.

(3) Description of the supplies/services required to meet the agency's needs:

As detailed in the revised Statement of Work (SOW) dated 10 February 2026, the contractor is required to provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision to design and install a new, dry-type fire sprinkler system in the north side of Building

341. The scope includes: conducting a flow test and analysis of the current water supply system; preparing hydraulic calculations, sprinkler layout plans, and all necessary design drawings for the new system; integrating the new suppression system with the new fire alarm and mass notification system being installed under the original contract; lastly, a final system testing and certification by a qualified fire protection engineer.

(4) Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale:

This action is justified under the authority of RFO 16.507-6(b)(3) Exceptions to Fair Opportunity, which permits the order to be issued on a sole-source 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 fair opportunity to be considered from the original order.

Supporting Rationale:

Since NASCO is already working the overall fire alarm system for the south side of the facility, the justification to approve a sole source modification to the project follows the familiarity with entry/access procedures and initial fire alarm design/construction that will continue to the north side of the facility. This modification will add a new scope of work to extend the fire suppression system into the un-sprinkled side. This action is a logical follow-on to the original order and is required to correct a fire safety deficiency identified as high risk by the Base Fire Marshal. Furthermore, the initial design phase in 2024 excepted the scope to the north side of the facility based on the interpretation of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code, which considered the facility's perceived occupancy classification, building construction type, and use of the spaces in question. The existing design of the south side suppression system must be seamlessly integrated with the new design/construction of the north side fire alarm system, in order to correct the high risk assessment, add life saving systems to an outdated system with operational occupancy.

November 2018 Page 1 of 3

Economy and Efficiency: Awarding this modification to the incumbent contractor is the most economical and efficient method.

A separate competitive procurement would introduce significant inefficiencies, including:

a. Duplication of costs related to project management, mobilization, site familiarization, and security badging.

b. Increased government oversight costs and programmatic risks associated with coordinating two separate contractors working on interconnected life-safety systems within the same facility.

c. Potential for delays to the correction of a known fire safety deficiency.

d. The incumbent contractor is already mobilized, has established a working relationship with base personnel, and is familiar with the project site, including the unique requirements of working in a historic building.

(5) Contracting Officer's determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contracting Officer determines the final negotiated price to be fair and reasonable. This determination is based on a comprehensive analysis of the contractor's detailed cost proposal, which is evaluated against an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The government will ensure all proposed costs for labor, materials, and equipment are justified.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

Historic Building: Building 341 is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The incumbent contractor is already familiar with the stringent requirements for working in a historic facility and coordinating with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Base Cultural Resources Manager.

Urgent Safety Requirement: The modification is necessary to correct a fire safety deficiency identified as high-risk by the F.E.

Warren Fire Department. Proceeding with a sole-source modification is the most expeditious way to eliminate this deficiency and ensure the safety of personnel and property.

Project Continuity: The project is designated as "high-visibility." Using the incumbent contractor ensures continuity and maintains the high standard of quality expected for the project. Also, since a contractor is already working in area identified in this requirement, it would be irresponsible and chaotic to have two different contractors working in the same area.

Warranty: By having the same contractor do the proposed work, it ensures that all warranties to the current award remains intact. If the requirement was open to all FRMACC contractors and another contractor won the award, identification of work warranty posts a challenge as to which system (north or south) malfunctions, therefore, liability becomes a battle. It may also void warranties on work from the initial contract and limits the Government's ability to hold any of construction contractor accountable, and would result in different renovations within the same space. This would severely impact and cause unnecessary expense and interruption of mission.

(7) Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to increasing fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services:

The need for this sole-source action arose from an unforeseen change in the interpretation of fire protection code requirements after the original award. To prevent this in the future, the agency will:

Implement more rigorous pre-solicitation design and code compliance reviews that include formal concurrence from all relevant authorities, including the base Fire Marshal (AHJ).

Ensure that the full scope of all anticipated requirements is identified and included in solicitations to the maximum extent practicable, minimizing the need for out-of-scope, sole-source modifications.

(8) Program Manager's certification that supporting data is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

November 2018 Page 2 of 3

(9) Contracting Officer's certification that the justification is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(1 O) Approving Official's determination that one of the circumstances in FAR 16.505{b)(2)(i) applies to the order.

As evidenced by my signature below, I hereby determine that the fair opportunity exception checked on page 1 applies.

Date Contracting Officer Signature

Liezel C McIntyre, Contracting Officer MCINTYRE.LI EZEL.CA Digitally signed by

16 Apr 2026 MCINTYRE.LIEZEL.CABERO.1264564049

PKAB/307-773-3411 BERO.1264564049 Date: 2026.04.16 09:27:41 --06'00'

November 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 3 of 3