ITISS Follow-on - TSF 1012 - Limited Sources Justification - FINAL.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program (see FAR 8.401)

Treasury Standard Form – 1012 (Rev 5/18)

Prescribed by Treasury: DTAP 1008.405-6

Tracking No.

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity:

The requiring activity is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Information Technology Services (ITS), and the contracting activity is the OCC Office of Acquisition Management.

2.a Nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The purpose of this limited-sources justification is to obtain approval to award a follow-on task order with Federal Working Group (FWG) for Information Technology Infrastructure Support Services (ITISS) for a previously competed task order pursuant to 8.405-6. The need date for these services is January 20, 2023. The period of performance will be from January 20, 2023 through January 19, 2024. If exercised, the first option period will extend the period of performance to January 19, 2025.

Contractor is a small business:

Federal Working Group (FWG) 4620 Lee Hwy Ste 210 Arlington, VA 22207-3400

2.b Name of the vendor: Federal Working Group 2.c Requisition No.: OCC1790010000 2.d Bridge contract: X Yes ☐ No 2.e Brand name: ☐ Yes X No 3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs:

The proposed acquisition is to maintain the current Information Technology Infrastructure Support Services (ITISS) provided under task order TCC17HQ0107, FWG. The scope of services will not change.

The services are critical to the agency’s infrastructure and the OCC must continue these services.

3.b Includes IT: X Yes ☐ No NAICS – 541519; PCS Code: DA10 3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value:

The task order value (base plus one option) is:

Total: $21,055,390.56

The total evaluated price inclusive of 52.217-8 is $26,301,448.92

4.a Identification of the authority being used (Check the appropriate box that applies).

☐ FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A) – An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the procedures would result in unacceptable delays.

☐ FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B) – Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized.

X FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) – In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order or BPA provided that the original order or BPA was placed in accordance with FSS procedures in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.

☐ FAR 8.405-6(b) – Items peculiar to one manufacturer.

4.b Supporting Rationale:

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program (see FAR 8.401)

In accordance with 8.405-6, Limiting sources, OCC justifies the use of the new work is a follow-on via (a)(1)(i)(C) – In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order or BPA provided that the original order or BPA was placed in accordance with FSS procedures in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. Additionally, the original order was not previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures. It was competed as a small business set-aside off of GSA Schedule 70. In considering economy and efficiency, no new work will be added to the current scope. It will be for the required support services currently being provided to support OCC’s infrastructure.

The OCC is in the process of recompeting its infrastructure support services contract (solicitation 2031JW23Q00021). This logical follow on will allow the OCC to maintain existing infrastructure support during the solicitation and award of a new contract

5. A determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the order or BPA represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d):

The Contracting Officer has determined that the order (TCC17HQG0107) represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d) and lowest overall cost alternative to meet the Government’s needs considering price (discounted GSA labor rates) and administrative costs.

6. A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement why market research was not conducted:

Due to the nature of acquisition and the unique qualifications of the contractor as described in section 5 above the Government market research was not conducted. However, the OCC is recompeting the agency’s infrastructure task order (GSA eBuy small business set aside –

2031JW23Q00021)

7.a Any other facts supporting this justification:

N/A

7.b Attachments: ☐ Yes X No

8. A statement of the actions, if any, the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies and services is made:

This requirement will be competed amongst other small businesses See #6 above.

9. Certifications and Approvals:

9.a Program Office Certification (Requiring Activity). I hereby certify that any supporting information and data provided (e.g., the Government’s minimum needs or requirements, or other rationale for the limited sources) and which form the basis for this justification for an exception to fair opportunity, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Clyde Halsrud Date:

Signature:

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program (see FAR 8.401)

9.b Contracting Officer Certification and Approval. I hereby determine the circumstances of this acquisition support the justification to acquire these supplies or services on a limited source basis. I also certify this limited-sources justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the authorized contracting officer for this acquisition, I hereby approve the processing of this requirement on a limited-source basis.

Name: Karen Oettinger Date:

Signature:

10. Additional Reviews and Approvals (As applicable):

10.a Bureau Chief Information Officer or Authorized Designee (for IT requirements that are over $5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification. (Note: The Bureau CIO may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to the Associate Bureau CIO(s).)

Name: Jack Donnelly Date:

Signature:

10.b Advocate for Competition (if over $700,000, but not exceeding $13.5 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this limited-sources justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the ordering activity’s Advocate for competition, I hereby approve this limited-sources justification.

Name: Joyce Cofield Date:

Signature:

10.c Head of the Procuring Activity or Authorized Designee (if over $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this limited-sources justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the head of the procuring activity or authorized designee, I hereby approve this limited-sources justification.

Name: Deirdre Eischens Date:

Signature:

10.d Treasury Chief Information Officer (for IT requirements that are over $68 million). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification.

Name: Date:

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program (see FAR 8.401)

10.e Senior Procurement Executive (if over $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this limited-sources justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, I hereby approve this limited-sources justification.

Name: Date:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE

SF-1012 - LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

I. General instructions. Each Limited-Sources justification shall contain sufficient information and data to justify the proposed action, thereby be able to stand on its own. This type of detail is critical in order to enable a reviewer and/or approver to clearly understand the requirement and the rationale for supporting the justification. Simply copying and pasting information from a vendor’s website or marketing literature fails to support the use of such justification. Market research performed by the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity should be used to support this document.

Given the majority of the information and data necessary to support this type of action resides with the Requiring Activity, they are the primary party responsible for completing this form. However, the Requiring Activity shall seek assistance and input from the Contracting Activity/Contracting Officer (preferably in advance of submission of the procurement request). It is also recommended the justification is not signed by the Requiring Activity until such time the Contracting Officer has had an opportunity to review, make necessary revisions and to include other necessary information or data to support the justification.

For Brand-name acquisitions keep in mind the justification is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name and that that the document approval requirements only apply to that portion.

However, it does not mean that details regarding the overarching requirement (i.e. in the instance where the brand name is only a portion of an overall requirement) aren’t to be included in the document.

In the event of conflict between this form and applicable regulatory coverage (i.e. FAR and DTAR), the more stringent requirement shall be followed.

If the requirement involves classified or sensitive information ensure the proper steps are taken to protect the information (e.g. labeling and marking).

Prior to distribution for signature: (i) retain only those signature blocks applicable to the dollar value of the items covered by this justification, (ii) delete all green text (which are examples), and (iii) consider converting the document to .pdf to support electronic signature and ease of retention.

The fields within this form are fluid and will change based upon input, therefore individuals completing this form need to be mindful of formatting prior to converting the document to pdf and submitting it for signature.

II. Field specific instructions.

1. Identification of the requiring activity and the contracting activity. Provide the name of the requiring activity (e.g. BFS’ –IT Office). Provide the name of the contracting agency and the name of the actual contracting activity (e.g. BFS’s – Contracting Office for IT).

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved. Describe the type of action being issued (e.g., new award, contract modification, or brand name). Identify the contemplated contract type (e.g.

firm fixed price). If known, include period of performance. Also, when processing a class justification, include the effective period the justification will be in effect.

If modifying an existing order or BPA, thereby requiring a justification or a modification to the original justification then ensure to include the order/BPA number, proposed contract modification number, nature of why the modification is required, and, if applicable, a copy of the initial justification.

If brand name, state this justification is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name.

Section 2.b Name of vendor. If applicable, insert the name of proposed vendor. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.c Requisition Number. If known, include the requisition number. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.d Bridge contract. Check the applicable box. See DTAP 1017.70 for a definition of bridge contract and other requirements.

Section 2.e Brand name. Check the applicable box.

3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs. Provide a clear, concise description of the supplies or services to be procured. Include a statement regarding the delivery schedule and/or the period of performance, inclusive of all option periods and award terms.

State the schedule and associated schedule category(ies) the supplies or services are being procured against. For supplies, include details such quantity and a brief description of the items (e.g. twelve (12) laptops).

For brand name, provide the name of the brand, model number and other specific details associated with the brand name item(s) to be procured; name(s) of known sources that can provide the brand name.

For modification describe the purpose of modification, including details such as proposed extension to the period of performance as well as the purpose of and type of the contract.

3.b Includes IT. Check the applicable box. If, yes is selected then include the NAICS and PSC.

3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value. Provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the anticipated award, inclusive of all options, award terms and any other monetary incentives. If applicable, provide separately for each option, award term and other monetary incentive a general description (e.g. option period 1 – April x, 201x thru March x, 201x) and the associated individual dollar amount. These separate dollar amounts should add up to the total estimated dollar value; however if there is a difference then provide a discussion as to why they don’t.

For brand name provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the portion of the proposed acquisition, inclusive of all options, award terms and other monetary incentives, that is for the brand name item and the full IGCE/estimated dollar value of the acquisition.

For modifications provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the modification and the current total dollar value of the contract.

4.a Identification of the exception to fair opportunity being used. Check the applicable exception being used for this justification.

4.b Supporting Rationale. Provide a clear and concise description of the rationale for the use of the authority being cited above, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. The following provides additional insight for purposes of completing this field:

• FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A) Describe the nature or circumstances of the urgency surrounding the agency’s need; how any follow-on work will be competed or how such urgency will be mitigated in the future; describe the extent and impact of the unacceptable delay (e.g. quantitative data, dollars that would be lost, the impact to schedule) if award is not made in the timeframe needed; provide supporting rationale and a concise description of the extent, nature, and impact of the potential harm to the Government.

• FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B) Describe what makes this contractor the only responsible source. For example, (i) does the proposed contractor have facilities or equipment that are specialized or unique that are vital to the effort?; (ii) Is the proposed contractor the only one that can meet critical schedule(s) required by the Government?; (iii) Does the proposed contractor have prior experience or expertise of a highly specialized nature that is vital to the effort?; (iv) Does the contractor have an exclusive licensing agreement? Fully explain why any other supply or service provided by another vendor will not satisfy the Government’s need. Describe market survey and analysis efforts leading to this conclusion. Do not simply take information from a vendor’s website or other such marketing information to use as the basis as to why they are unique.

• FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) Describe why the work is a logical follow-on and provide information on the original competition for the first order; thereby describing the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value). Provide the estimated cost and/or time savings that will result from the non-competitive award, and explain the basis for the estimate. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.

• FAR 8.405-6(b) State the brand name product’s unique attributes (be specific and use technical terms, if necessary). Describe why the brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs. Provide an estimate of the cost and/or delay the Government would incur if other than the brand name item is used for this requirement. Do not simply take information from a vendor’s website or other such marketing information to use as the basis as to why they are unique. Also, describe any type of market survey and analysis efforts conducted to support this conclusion.

5. A determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the order or BPA represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d). Provide a clear and complete description of the contracting officer’s determination that the proposed order or BPA represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d). See also DTAP 1008.404(d).

Keep in mind when ordering services that require a statement of work, the Contracting Officer needs to determine, after considering the level of effort and the mix of skills available for the tasks needed, that the proposed order or BPA represents a reasonable total price and will be the best value for the Government.

6. A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement why market research was not conducted. Provide a clear and concise description of the market research conducted amongst schedule holders and the results (e.g. list the names of the schedule holders that were contacted or expressed interest). Note: If a market research summary report (e.g. SF 1010) was completed, provide a summary of the findings/determination along with a citation to that document so that a reviewer can refer to that document for greater detail. If market research was not conducted, provide a complete discussion of the rationale and, if applicable, the circumstances for why market research was not conducted.

7.a Any other facts supporting this justification. In addition to the example provided within the form itself, the following provides some additional insight based on the circumstances supporting the justification:

• If the justification is based on an urgent and compelling need, there may be additional data or estimated costs that further support the extent and nature of the harm to the government in delay in award will cause or

• If the justification is based on a need to purchase a patented or copyrighted product that has not been licensed for resale obtain some type of documentation from the vendor demonstrating they are intellectual property holder and there are no authorized resellers.

7.b Attachments. Check the applicable box. Examples of attachments might be a copy of the IGCE, certification from the vendor stating they are other only authorized reseller of the particular item or are the patent holder of the item.

8. A statement of the actions, if any, the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies and services is made. Describe actions taken, or that may be taken, to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required (e.g. overcoming challenges to restrictive data markings, data rights, preparation of a performance based work statement). If planning or in the midst of a competition, include information regarding this action (e.g. estimated date when the competitive procurement will occur or award to be made).

9. and 10. Certifications, Reviews, and Approvals. Each review must be preceded by lower level approval(s), e.g., over $68 million all approvals are required. IN NO CASE SHALL AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN

MORE THAN ONE APPROVAL LEVEL.

For justifications that include the purchase of Information Technology (IT) the following apply:

• The IT signature reflects only the portion of the acquisition that is IT. This can be important when dealing with an acquisition where IT does not represent the predominate value of the acquisition (i.e. therefore it is not assigned a separate IT PSC code (see the Treasury IT Acquisition Tracker).

• The Bureau Chief Information Officer (CIO) may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to Associate Bureau CIO(s). Refer to the Bureau supplement to the DTAP to determine if the Bureau CIO has indeed delegated their authority.

https://thegreen.treas.gov/do/ope/ITAcqTracker/Pages/Treasury-IT-Acquisition-Tracker---Home.aspx https://thegreen.treas.gov/do/ope/ITAcqTracker/Pages/Treasury-IT-Acquisition-Tracker---Home.aspx

FAR 8.405-6(d)(3) uses the terms “head of the procuring activity” which has the same meaning as head of the contracting activity (HCA).

A supplemental justification is required if any of the following revisions occur between the approval of the original justification and the covered award or modification of the contract: an increase in dollar value beyond the authority approved in the justification; a change in the competitive strategy that further reduces competition; or any type of change in the requirement that affects the basis of the justification.

Additional. Tracking No.: This field is completed as prescribed by Bureau procedures.