Attachment_9__consolidation_D&F.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Reference Number: CADEng2017 Title of Procurement: Consolidation D&F for CAD and Engineering Support Services

P a g e | 1

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Engineering and Defense Enterprise Computer

Center (DECC) Management Division Computer-Aided Drafting and Engineering Support Services

I have reviewed the requirement for computer-aided drafting (CAD) and engineering support services for the DISA engineering and facilities teams. This requirement is for a consolidated procurement action under 15 U.S.C. 657q. My review resulted in the following findings:

FINDINGS

1. DISA Engineering and DECC Management Division (MPE) and Facilities and Real Property

Management Division (MP7), through the Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization DISA Services Section, plan to solicit offers for CAD and engineering support services. The requiring office has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this procurement is both necessary and justified.

2. Description of the Procurement Action: Procurement is intended to optimize the efficiency of the mission’s CAD and engineering support services, including: computer-aided drafting, electrical and mechanical engineering support, facilities engineering, engineering project management support, environmental engineering, and professional engineering services. Efficiency will be optimized by consolidating the following two contracts:

i. HC1028-12-D-0004: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) was solicited and awarded as a competitive small business (SB) set-aside.

ii. HC1028-14-A-0001: Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) was solicited as competitive General Services Agency (GSA) and was awarded to a large business.

This consolidated requirement will be solicited and awarded as a 100% small business set-aside. The estimated total lifecycle value for the entire period of performance (POP), including all option periods, is $26,975,678.30.

The IGCE for the consolidated requirement was calculated using labor categories and labor rates from the two existing contracts, market research results, input from the Program Office subject matter experts; escalation for labor rates was estimated to be 3% annually. To account for anticipated growth in service requirements, the labor hours for Base Services Option Years (OY) 1, 2, 3, and 4 were escalated 10%. Technical Requirements (TR) labor hours were not escalated as they are not anticipated to require increased hours. Travel costs were based on historical costs incurred on the existing contracts and on future travel expectations. Travel costs were estimated at a total amount of $250,000 for the Base Period

P a g e | 2

($125,000 for MPE Base Services, and $125,000 for MPE Technical Requirements); a total of $320,000 for Option Year (OY) 1, which includes $250,000 for MPE (Base Services and Technical Requirements) and $70,000 for MP7 Technical Requirements, and a total of $375,000 for OYs 2, 3, and 4, which includes $250,000 for MPE (Base Services and Technical Requirements) and $125,000 for MP7 Technical Requirements. ODCs are anticipated in the total amount of $25,000 for the Base Period (MPE requirements only);

OY1 is estimated at a total of $35,000 ($25,000 for MPE and $10,000 for MP7); OYs 2, 3, and 4 reflect a total amount of $50,000 ($25,000 each for MPE and MP7). Off-Peak hours were estimated at a total cost of $50,000 for the Base period and all OYs. Off-Peak hours were based on historical costs incurred and expected off-peak work required to support MPE base services.

3. Applicable Statues/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. 657q and Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Subpart 207.170, Consolidation of Contract Requirements.

4. Acquisition History:

*without exercising optional 6-month extension

5. Results of Market Research: The Contracting Officers Representative (COR) performed market research from July to October 2016. Multiple market research methods were utilized, including: a review of the acquisition history of the existing IDIQ and BPA, interviews with Government personnel with knowledge of the services, sources sought announcements, Government source lists, and queries of online databases. Part of the intent of the market research was to identify potential sources and to determine the feasibility of consolidation.

A sources sought request was posted to GSA eBUY (RFQ1119443) on August 15, 2016 with a response date of August 30, 2016. The GSA eBUY sources sought was sent to all GSA vendors holding contracts under the 00CORP GSA schedule; 58 responses were received;

however, only 3 of the responses provided capability statements (Amazing Grace Enterprises, Global Engineering, and Markon Solutions), all other responding vendors indicated they either did not provide the required services or were not interested in this requirement. Amazing Grace Enterprises provided limited information with several aspects of the requirement not addressed. Based on this submission, it was determined this contractor

Contract # Contractor Lifecycle Value Description POP End

HC1028-12-D-0004 GEM Companies, Inc.

$24,400.000 (IDIQ Ceiling Amount;

Base + 4 OYs) CAD & Engineering

Services 03/31/17*

HC1028-14-A-0001

The Louis Berger

Group, Inc.

$11,250,000 (BPA Ceiling Amount;

Base + 4 OYs) Professional

Engineering Services 04/30/19

TOTALS $35,650,000

P a g e | 3 does not have the capability to perform all required tasks as defined in the PWS. Markon Solutions’ response indicated they are not a small business under the applicable NAICS code.

A second sources sought was posted to FedBizOpps (HC1028CADENG) on August 15, 2016 with a response date of August 30, 2016. Nine responses were received in response to this sources sought request (Amazing Grace Enterprises, Apex Engineered Solutions, Bradford Consulting Engineers, Cobra Design and Engineering, GEM Companies, Inc., McBride Engineering, SGM Engineering, Stan Mar, The Racey Group). The responses received from Amazing Grace Enterprises, Cobra Design and Engineering, Stan Mar, and The Racey Group provided limited information with several aspects of the requirement not addressed. Based on these submissions, it was determined these contractors do not have the capability to perform all required tasks as defined in the PWS.

The following table describes the responses received from the sources sought requests where the COR determined the contractor(s) likely possess the ability to perform all of the required tasks.

Sources Sought Results:

Contractor Small Business

Type Sources Sought Determination of Capability

Apex Engineered Solutions

SB, SDB, WOSB,

EDWOSB FBO

Response described subcontracting arrangements to address most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears likely to be able to fulfill the requirement, but some questions remain regarding the environmental aspects.

Bradford Consulting Engineers SB FBO

Response addressed most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears to be able to fulfill the requirement

GEM Companies SB, SDB FBO

Response described subcontracting arrangements to address most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears likely to be able to fulfill the requirement, but some questions remain regarding engineering support aspects of the requirement.

Global Engineering Solutions

SB, SDB, WOSB,

EDWOSB GSA

Response described a subcontracting arrangement to address most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears to be able to fulfill the requirement

McBride Engineering

SB, WOSB,

EDWOSB FBO

Response described subcontracting arrangements to address most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears likely to be able to fulfill the requirement, but some questions remain regarding data center experience and complex subcontracting arrangements.

SGM Engineering SB, SDB FBO

Response addressed most aspects of the requirement. The contractor appears likely to be able to fulfill the requirement, but some

P a g e | 4 questions remain regarding environmental engineering support and on-site support.

Government Source Lists & Queries of Online Databases:

Searches were performed using the following source lists and online databases:

Federal Supply Schedules http://www.gsa.gov/schedules A few GSA schedules were examined in order to gain familiarity with engineering services, labor categories, and labor rates available through GSA schedules.

SBA Dynamic Small Business Database http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm A search of the Small Business Administration Dynamic Small Business Search tool (SBA DSBS) delivered the results described below. Many results were returned when searching for the applicable NAICS code and any of the associated keywords, but few results were returned when searching for the applicable NAICS code with all of the associated keywords. The results of the SBA DSBS searches indicates that many socio-economic group contractors are able to satisfy some aspects of the requirement; but few, if any, are able to provide most or all of the required services.

Query of the SBA DSBS Tool Results

Search 1: Total number of small business concerns in each of the individual socio-economic groups (search parameters and keywords used: NAICS 541330; Keywords (match ANY keyword): CAD, electrical, mechanical, and environmental):

Search 2: Total number of small business concerns in each of the individual socio-economic groups (search parameters and keywords used: NAICS 541330; Keywords (match ALL keywords): CAD, electrical, mechanical, and environmental:

Procurement List Maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who are

Blind or Severely Disabled (AbilityOne) http://www.abilityone.gov/index.html

Number Socio-Economic Group 670 8(a) 347 HUBZone 536 Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned

1,183 Woman-Owned Small Business

Number Socio-Economic Group 2 8(a) 1 HUBZone 1 Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 0 Woman-Owned Small Business

P a g e | 5

No vendors were found on the AbilityOne procurement list that have the capability of fully satisfying this requirement.

6. Alternative Contracting Approaches Involving a Lesser Degree of Consolidation, and Rationale for Rejection:

The alternatives and the rational for rejection are as follows:

a. Use of Government Personnel to Perform the Required Services

This alternative was not selected, based on the following considerations:

This alternative requires an influx of Government billets to assume the contractor supported functions. The process of budgeting for and filling Government billets is time intensive. Government billets cannot be increased or decreased with the speed and efficiency needed to respond to the intermittent engineering services to support special projects or studies. The intermittent nature of these services does not justify the need for a permanent Government employee. Additionally, the ongoing CAD services are not expected to be an indefinite requirement to justify an additional permanent Government employee. The ongoing engineering services are continuously monitored and assessed to determine if it is feasible to fulfill the requirements by increasing Government billets.

The use of Government personnel to perform the required services is not an advantageous solution at this time.

b. Re-competing the Contracts Separately

This alternative was not selected, based on the following considerations:

Acquisition Cycle Costs and Efficiencies: The acquisition cycle associated with competing and administering multiple contracts incurs increased administrative burdens and costs. Multiple contracts require dedicated teams for each contract to prepare the procurement packages, solicit and evaluate proposals, and perform post-award administration. In contrast, the consolidation of these requirements creates time and cost savings by requiring only one integrated team to prepare the acquisition package, perform the source selection tasks, and complete post-award activities to fulfill both requirements in a single, consolidated action.

7. Negative Impact on Small Business Concerns: No negative impacts on small businesses were discovered. In fact, consolidating these requirements will have a positive impact on small businesses. Bundling is defined in FAR 2.101 as “consolidating two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business”.

However, this consolidation will not result in a bundled contract. Market research has

P a g e | 6 determined that this consolidated requirement is suitable for award to a small business. This consolidated requirement will be 100% set-aside for small businesses participation. In addition, the portion of this requirement currently provided under the BPA with a large business contractor will now be awarded to a small business. This procurement does not involve bundling; and thus, a bundling analysis was not conducted, pursuant to FAR 7.107.

8. Steps Taken to Include Small Business Concerns: The existing BPA contractor (Louis Berger, HC1028-14-A-0001) is a large business and the existing IDIQ contractor (GEM Companies, HC1028-12-D-0004) is a small business. Market research shows adequate sources of competition amongst the small business community; based on this the consolidated requirement will be solicited as a competitive, 100% small business set-aside.

9. Benefits of Consolidation: Using a consolidated approach, the Government can focus on development of a single acquisition strategy. The reduction in the number of contracts will reduce DISA’s costs to administer the contracts and reduce risks and vulnerabilities associated with separately managed contracts, enabling better monitoring and management of this effort.

The tasks associated with both existing contracts require the same or similar experience and expertise in various engineering disciplines. By consolidating these requirements, DISA is able to simplify processes and improve its oversight and functional support responsibilities associated with managing and awarding multiple contracts for the same or similar requirements. This consolidation is intended to provide an effective solution to optimize efficiencies by consolidating the current IDIQ and BPA contracts listed above, which are of similar scope, into a new, consolidated contract, solicited and awarded as a competitive 100% small business set-aside. These two contracts currently provide similar tasks in support of DISA’s MPE and MP7.

DISA MPE requires both continuous and intermittent engineering services, including CAD services and facilities engineering support; however, intermittent engineering services include environmental engineering support and professional engineering services. DISA’s MP7 primary requirement is intermittent professional engineering services. These services are currently fulfilled by placing call orders against the existing BPA for facilities engineering and special project engineering support and/or task orders for CAD services and facilities engineering support services. This consolidation effort will streamline processes and functional support responsibilities through the elimination of duplicate or overlapping work requirements and acquisitions packages, and the evaluation of contractor performance for two separate contracts.

As a result of this consolidation, the Government estimates a lifecycle cost savings of approximately $8,674,321.70, or 24%. The total lifecycle amount of the existing IDIQ for Engineering Support Services and CAD Services (HC1028-12-D-0004) is $24,400,000.00 and the existing BPA for Professional Engineering Services (HC1028-14-A-0001) is $11,250,000.00, for a total cost of $35,650,000.00. The IGCE for this consolidated effort has a lifecycle cost of $26,975,678.30, which represents a decrease, or cost savings, in the total lifecycle cost of $8,674,321.70, or approximately 24% ($8,674,321.70/$35,650,000.00 = 24%).

P a g e | 7

DETERMINATION

Upon the basis of the findings above, I hereby determine, pursuant to the authority of 15 U.S.C.

675q and DFARS 207.170-3 that the proposed consolidation of the requirements is necessary and justified in that the benefits of the consolidation acquisition strategy substantially exceed the benefits of the alternative contracting approaches discussed in paragraph 5 above.

TERRI L. ROLLINS

Contracting Officer Date:

SARAH E. ZABEL

Major General, USAF Senior Procurement Executive Date: