FY26 CORVUS_Bridge_FOE_Redacted.pdf

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

Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 2 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 2 of 5 support provided due to a lapse in service, which is delaying the overall goal of full operational capability of the new squadrons and directly impacts CFC/S2 intelligence mission operations. The delay has required an urgent bridge TO to mitigate mission degradation and delays.

RATIONALE FOR URGENCY OF FOE:

A short-term direct award to Riverside is necessary as they are the only contractor capable of delivering a viable proposal and ensuring almost immediate support to shorten the current lapse in service while providing minimal risk to the Government. This is due to their unique qualifications, specialized experience in this specific requirement, necessary security clearances, and integration within supported mission areas, as the current incumbent contractor. While other contractors may have the capability to perform, their performance start date would be at least 30 days longer, which would further extend the current lapse in service, would introduce unacceptable risks in performance delays, and would not make good business sense for a short-term contract solution.

It is in the Government's best interest to issue a direct award service bridge to minimize the break in service. This award is to allow the continuation of services in support of CFC/S2 functions. If this requirement was competed for the estimated period of performance, CFC/S2 would experience a break in service of more than 6 months. If this requirement was awarded to a contractor other than the incumbent, CFC/S2 would have their break in service increase by at least 30 additional days.

No vehicle has been identified that would afford for competitive acquisition in the time frame noted above.

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

The anticipated price is based on actual costs incurred under the previous General Services Administration contract, and those costs were previously determined fair and reasonable utilizing adequate price competition. For this specific contract action, the contracting officer will utilize the previously determined fair and reasonable rates plus escalation as a basis for negotiation to determine the 6 month bridge action reasonable. In addition, contracting officer will utilize the proposal analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1 to determine fair and reasonable pricing, specifically cost analysis of other than certified cost or pricing data through comparison with historical pricing, evaluation of direct labor rates, and trend analysis.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

Competing this requirement would create an ineffective operational end-state and incur non-recoverable costs to support the short-term period of performance. The Government estimates these costs could include training, travel, and on-boarding costs. The Government would then have to pay for these same costs when the current competitive procurement is awarded and begins. There is no expectation that a competitive procurement for this bridge action would result in a substantially lower price to trade-off the cost for better performance when the incumbent is meeting the Government's requirements.

(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:

There are no other actions planned to remove or overcome any barriers. A full follow-on competitive v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 4 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 4 of 5

Instructions for Completing the Template IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)

(2) State whether the action is a new order or a modification to an existing order. Identify the basic multiple award contract number and the order number for the current action. Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g., Firm Fixed price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.).

(3) Specifically describe the supplies/services to be acquired including the price/cost and quantity of each item in the order and the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. State the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order. Explain how the requirement/order fits under the scope of the basic multiple award contracts.

(Note: The Contracting Officer must ensure that the order is issued within the period of performance and within the maximum value of the contract).

(4) Include the appropriate exception from FAR 16.505 (b)(2) and the supporting rationale. FAR16.505(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)(__) [Insert A,B, C, D, or E]. If a brand name product description is being justified, use this section to explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and why other companies' similar products/services do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.

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”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the mission impact if awarded to any other contractor. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B): “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification, with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

Supporting documentation may be attached to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.

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 order”. When using this exception provide information on the previously competed order under this contract and detail the economies and efficiencies that will be obtained by going sole source for the follow-on order. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

General statements are not acceptable.

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.”

Discuss the market research that was conducted by the user/technical team/contracting officer among the supplies/services of all awardees that resulted in the conclusion that a fair opportunity exception applied. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS 216.505-70 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale. If any other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the requirement, but was not considered a potential source, explain why that awardee cannot provide the required supplies/perform the service.

v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 5 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 Security Marking (select from the drop-down list) Page 5 of 5

If the use of a brand name purchase description is being justified, the market research should include an analysis of any industry proposed alternative products or approaches to meeting the requirements. Additionally, the Government's efforts to identify as many potential sources as practicable offering the required brand name item(s) should be addressed.

(5) This paragraph needs to be tailored based on the types of CLINs in the order and the pricing arrangements on the basic multiple award contract. If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the Contracting Officer must establish prices for each order IAW FAR 15.4. The paragraph needs to describe the steps that will ensure that the prices/estimated cost of the order will be fair and reasonable. For example, even if firm-fixed prices were obtained under adequate price competition in the award of the multiple award contract, the Contracting Officer still needs to consider market conditions and other factors that may have changed since contract award and explain the basis in the determination that prices/costs are fair and reasonable prior to award of the order.

(6) Provide any other facts supporting the use of exceptions to the fair opportunity process.

(7) Include a statement of the actions, if any, to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.