FOE_redacted.pdf

FAIR OPPORTUNITY EXCEPTION (FOE) JUSTIFICATION

I. Contracting Activity

A. Agency: Department of Defense, NORAD NORTHCOM

B. Contracting Activity: 21 CONS/LGCC, Peterson AFB, CO

C. Justification Type: 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.

II. Nature and/or Description of the Action Being Approved

This is a new Firm Fixed Price order for Labor as a follow-on to FA2517-12-D-9001-0014.

III. Description of the Supplies/Services Required To Meet the Agency’s Needs

The contractor shall provide performance based services for on-site Homeland Design Defense

Phase 3 (HDD3) for NORAD and USNORTHCOM J36 (N-NC/J3). These services are required beginning 18 May 2015 for six months.

This requirement was part of the previous effort awarded competitively to S4 Inc under TA2S

IDIQ Task Order FA2517-12-D-9001-0014. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) was revised to include “Find, Fix and Finish” COA’s to the N/J36 O-6 for consideration and refinement as required. The new Task Order allows adequate time to continue efforts that were begun under

Task Order 9001-0014.

IV. Authority Permitting a Fair Opportunity Exception

FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C).

V. Demonstration of the Contractor’s Unique Qualifications or Nature of the Acquisition

Requires the Use of the Authority Cited Above to Provide the Required Supply/Service

(Applicability of Authority)

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C), “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/16.htm#P399_69627 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/16.htm#P399_69627 order.” N-NC/J3 states CDR NORAD and USNORTHCOM requested HDD be extended in order to revise the Course of Action recommendations which will be presented to the Joint

Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). To compete a requirement for this six month period is not practical when considering the expense and risk involved. To issue a new Task Order to S4 representing the extension of the same effort would eliminate the expense to any prospective contractor of recruiting, hiring, and relocating a new individual. Further, S4 has indicated their current employee is interested in continuing with them for the interim period offered under this Task Order. The rates offered by S4 are expected to reflect rates previously competed when this initial Task Order was awarded resulting in a fair and reasonable price to the government. Further, the time and effort which would be expended by both the government and a perspective contractor to compete this effort would not yield any further savings or advantages to the government. On the contrary, competing this requirement would invite unnecessary risk. Therefore, in the interest of economy and efficiency, the decision not to compete this effort and instead negotiate a 6-month duration task order as a logical follow-on to TO 9001-0014 is in the best interest of the government.

VI. Description of Efforts Made To Ensure Competition Between All Awardees

In accordance with FAR 16.505(a)(1) orders under indefinite-delivery contracts do not have to be synopsized. Paragraph V above justifies why competition among all awardees is not suitable for this acquisition. Offering this short term requirement to be competed amongst both TA2S contractors was considered, but was not deemed appropriate given the short length of the PoP.

VII. Determination by the Contracting Officer That The Anticipated Cost to the Government

Will Be Fair and Reasonable

As stated in Paragraph V above, the rates offered by S4 are expected to reflect rates previously competed when this initial Task Order was awarded resulting in a fair and reasonable price to the government.

VIII. Description of Market Research Conducted Among All Awardees and the Results Or A

Statement of the Reason Market Research Was Not Conducted

No formal market research was conducted to conclude the exception at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) should be applied. The previously competed award of Task Order FA2517-12-9001-0014 to S4, Inc. established a short PoP with the intent that the non-severable task would be completed.

Nearing completion of the task, the CDR NORAD and USNORTHCOM requested more in-depth vectors of study to support the JROC in the Fall of 2015. To attempt a competitive award IAW

FAR 16.505(b)(1) for this short duration would unnecessarily disrupt the work effort currently being provided.

IX. Other Facts Supporting the Justification

N/A

X. List of Any Awardee That Expressed Interest in the Acquisition

Intecon LLC expressed interest in the original award and provided a proposal in August 2014.

However, Intecon is not considered a potential source for this short term requirement due to the expected recruiting, hiring and relocating costs as stated in paragraph V. above.

XI. Actions the Agency May Take to Remove or Overcome Any Barriers To Increasing Fair

Opportunity Before Any Subsequent Acquisition For the Supplies or Services

At the conclusion of this Task Order, no further acquisition is expected to support this requirement.

XII. Contracting Officer’s Certification

The contracting officer’s signature on the signature page evidences that he/she has determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

XIII. Technical/Requirements Personnel’s Certification

As evidenced by their signatures on the signature page, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein which is their responsibility is both accurate and complete.