THA_CPS_Justification_FBO_Post.pdf

PORT MODERNIZATION JUAREZ-LINCOLN LAND PORT OF ENTRY

LAREDO, TEXAS

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETION

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Under FAR 6.302

Less Than $12.5 Million Construction Phase Services

Vehicle Processing Facility, Juárez-Lincoln LPOE (Bridge 2), Laredo, Texas THA Architecture, Inc. (A/E)

Contract No. TBD

1. FAR 6.303-2(b)(1) – Identification of the Agency and the Contracting Activity: The Contracting Activity is the General Services Administration (GSA), Region 7, Public Buildings Service, Acquisition Management Division, Program Support Branch, Capital Investment Program (7PQA). The customer agency is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

2. FAR 6.303-2(b)(2) – Nature and/or Description of the Action Being Approved: Prepared by GSA on behalf of CBP, this is a justification for other than full and open competition for procurement of a logical follow-on contract for Construction Phase Services (CPS) for the Vehicle Processing Facility at the Juárez-Lincoln (J&L) Port of Entry (POE) in Laredo, Texas. The Architect-Engineering (A/E) design services for the facility were performed by THA Architecture, Inc. (THA) under Contract Number GS-07P-09-HH-D-0026 and Task Order number GS-P-07-11-HH-0004. At the time of that task order award, CPS was not negotiated as part of the scope of work. THA’s Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract has expired, leaving GSA without the ability to issue a new task order for these services. Therefore, this procurement is for a follow-on stand-alone contract.

3. FAR 6.303-2(b)(3) – Description of the Services: The Construction Phase Services includes reviewing issues that affect the design integrity/intent; reviewing construction submittals for conformance with project specification requirements; making site visits to verify installation is in accordance with design intent and to clarify discrepancies or omissions in the construction contract documents; working with the Construction Manager as Agent (CMa) in responding to requests for clarification/RFIs; preparing any additional explanatory drawings; participating in up to two construction excellence peer reviews;

performing commissioning support services; and assisting the General Contractor (GC) in updating CAD construction (as-built) drawings and preparing the final Record Drawings for the project. The value of this new contract will be approximately $______.

4. FAR 6.303-2(b)(4) – Statutory Authority: 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1); FAR 6.302-1: Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The new contract, which is a logical follow-on to the task order GS-P-07-11-HH-0004, will assure the design as approved by the GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner is implemented. Currently, there is no impact to the project but now that a construction award has been made, having a contract in place for Construction Phase Services is essential to the project success.

5. FAR 6.303-2(b)(5) – Demonstration that the Proposed Contractor’s Unique Qualifications or the Nature of the Acquisition Requires use of the Authority Cited: FAR 6.302-1 allows for the use of other than full and open competition when required supplies or services are available from only one responsible source.

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETION

THA is the responsible source due to three factors: efficiency, economy, and time.

Efficiency: THA has experienced a steep learning curve for work by virtue of their developing the design and construction documents for the Vehicle Processing Facility at Juárez-Lincoln Port of Entry, which is a highly restricted facility. The Port of Entry is a complex environment made even more so by the 24/7 nature of CBP’s operational mission. In the interest of efficiency and because it is a logical follow on to an order previously issued under a similar contract, the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on contract creates a logical sequence due to THA, being the A/E, has already performed the design work. By not using THA for the CPS, GSA is taking on the liability of interpreting and/or changing the design documents thereby relieving the A/E of responsibility.

Economy: Hiring a different A/E to perform the CPS for this project would still place the liability on GSA for the design as another A/E would neither be willing to nor able to accept liability for another firm’s design. Award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Costs have the potential to significantly increase by roughly double the anticipated value for these services because the new A/E would have to become familiar with the contract documents.

Time: In the interest of time, the construction contract has already been awarded. GSA anticipates issuing the full notice to proceed in September 2015. It is in the best interest of the Government to award the CPS as soon as possible to allow the A/E to work concurrently during construction. The time and effort to go full and open competition would be the least effective way to proceed due to time constraints. The potential delay of CPS would prevent GSA from having the A/E oversight and support needed during construction of their design. In addition, Key Personnel already have received security clearances with THA, which involved a lengthy process.

Therefore, this contract must be issued as a sole-source basis to the only responsible contractor, THA, in the interest of efficiency, economy, and time.

6. FAR 6.303-2(b)(6) – Efforts to Solicit to as Many Sources as Practicable: Since this is a justification for a sole source procurement and the intent is to issue a follow-on, stand-alone contract to the incumbent contractor, other sources will not be solicited.

7. FAR 6.303-2(b)(7) – Determination by the Contracting Officer that the Anticipated Cost to the Government Will be Fair and Reasonable: The Independent Government Estimate (IGE) will be based off the expired IDIQ discipline rates and overhead, escalated by 5%. The escalation rate of 5% was the same escalation rate determined to be fair and reasonable at the time of the IDIQ award. Since the contract is expired, the IGE used rates from the last option year and escalated it by 5% for 2015, which would essentially be the same rates had the IDIQ not expired. The Contracting Officer will determine the cost is fair and reasonable based upon historical prices paid and the IGE (FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii) & (v)) prior to making an award. This determination will be documented. Also, in accordance with FAR 15.403, certified cost and pricing data will be obtained and reviewed for accuracy.

8. FAR 6.303-2(b)(8) – Description of the Market Research Conducted: Market research will not be

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETION

conducted for reasons indicated in Paragraph 5 above.

9. FAR 6.303-2(b)(9) – Other Facts Supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition: The estimate for this new contract will be approximately $_____. This estimate for a stand-alone 2015 contract is derived from the last option year rates of the THA IDIQ escalated by 5%. These rates were determined to be fair and reasonable at the time of the IDIQ award. If GSA were to solicit the contract for CPS as full and open competition, there would be duplication of costs. GSA would not only pay for CPS, but also a significant amount towards familiarizing another A/E firm with the design – costs GSA previously paid THA for – as THA is the incumbent design firm.

10. FAR 6.303-2(b)(10) – List of Sources that Expressed an Interest in the Acquisition: THA Architecture, Inc.

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – Statement of Action to Overcome Barriers to Competition: No subsequent acquisitions for A/E services should be affected by the current acquisition. This is a one-time situation where the A/E performed design services but GSA failed to include the need for CPS in the scope of work. In the future, CPS should be included as an option in the design scope of work. Using the design A/E for CPS will result in substantial savings of money and time, as well as cutting out redundancy and duplication.

12. FAR 6.303-2(b)(12) – Contracting Officer Certification that the Justification is Accurate and Complete The Contracting Officer has determined that the actions taken under this acquisition meet the conditions described in FAR 6.302-1 and the source specified precludes full and open competition. It is in the best interest of the Government to purchase the services described above from THA Architecture, Inc. The information contained in the justification for other than full and open competition is accurate and complete to the best of the Contracting Officer’s knowledge.

13. FAR 6.303-2(b)(12)(c) – Supporting Evidence from Technical Personnel: Any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel and which form a basis of the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETION

Prepared by:

Raul Moreno Date Project Manager, 7PCB

Ashley Morgan Date Contracting Officer, 7PQA

Reviewed by:

The supporting data which form the basis for the justification is accurate.

Marsha Howard Date Supervisory Contracting Officer, 7PQA

Helen Kearns Date Assistant Regional Counsel, LD7

Carolyn R. Smith Date Branch Chief, Program Support Branch, 7PQA

Bobby Davis Date Director, Acquisition Management Division, 7PQ

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETION

I, as the Competition Advocate, do approve this Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition.

Matthew Madison Date Competition Advocate, 7PA