JA-17-0022_(Dr._Scheller)a_Redacted.pdf

Control Number: 17-0022

SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

FOR

OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

PURCHASE REQUEST #0010993575

1. AGENCY/CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: 411th Contracting Support Brigade, Korea, ATTN: CCEC-KOY-SC, Unit #15289, APO AP 96205-5289

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

a. NATURE: (X) New Requirement ( ) Follow-on Requirement ( ) MOD to existing purchase order/contract number:

b. PRICING: (X) Firm-Fixed Price ( ) Time & Materials ( ) Cost

For Hybrid Contract, list percentage of each type of pricing: Firm Fixed Price:

Time & Materials: _______ Cost: ____________

c. FUNDS: (X) Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) ( ) Other Funds: ___

d. FISCAL YEAR OF FUNDS: FY2017

e. NAME OF PROPOSED CONTRACTOR: Dr. Joseph M. Scheller

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES: The service provided under this purchase order is an Expert Witness Service in the court-martial cases of United States vs SPC

. The total estimated amount is $26,828.00.

4. AUTHORITY: FAR 13.106-1(b) Soliciting from a Single Source and FAR Part 6.302- 3(a)(1), (2)(iii) & (b)(3)(i), Expert Services.

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED:

a. The employment of Dr. Scheller is necessary because the Government-provided, adequate substitute consultant, Dr. William Young, holds a divergent scientific view than that of Dr. Scheller. On 27 October 2016, the Defense submitted a request to the Convening for funding and appointment of Dr. Stephen L. Nelson, Jr., as an expert consultant in the area of pediatric neurology. On 10 November 2016, the request for Dr.

Nelson was disapproved; however, the Government provided Dr. William Young, Chief, Pediatric Neurology Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center as an adequate substitute, expert consultant. The Defense does not contest that Dr. Young is a qualified pediatric neurologist. However, Dr. Young does not hold a subspecialty in neuroimaging, and his scientific viewpoint differs in the following respects:

(1) In discussing the possibility of suffering an aneurysm and a stroke, Dr. Young stated he would have expected ’s head to have been large for his age. However, after reviewing r’s medical records from the military system, Dr. Young is of the view that r’s head size was normal for his age. Contrarily, Dr. Scheller is of the opinion that ar’s head was not of a normal size specifically based upon his review of the CT and Angiogram images which show abnormal spaces within Darius Ceasar’s head. Dr. Scheller’s opinion was relayed to Dr. Young on 22 January 2017, and Dr. Young informed the Defense he would defer to Dr. Young’s fellowship-trained experience in neuroimaging.

(2) In discussing the possibility of suffering an aneurysm, although

Dr. Young has informed the Defense that an aneurysm is a possibility, he cannot testify that suffered an aneurysm because he cannot see evidence of an aneurysm after reviewing the CT and Angiogram images. Contrarily, Dr. Scheller will testify that he does see evidence of an aneurysm. Specifically, Dr. Scheller can walk through the images and walk through each area of the brain where he sees evidence of an aneurysm.

(3) Dr. Young is of the opinion that ’s injuries were most likely caused by trauma. Contrarily, Dr. Scheller will testify that the large subarachnoid hemorrhage found at autopsy is only consistent with an aneurysm. Dr. Scheller will further testify that while there is evidence of fluid collection in the subdural area of Darius Ceasar’s brain, it was an aneurysm and not any injury in the subdural region of the brain that caused his death.

(4) The divergent view of Dr. Young on these two points makes him an inadequate substitute as an expert witness. Furthermore, denying the Defense the opportunity to present Dr. Scheller’s testimony deprives SPC the basic tools of an adequate defense.

b. The basis for Dr. Scheller’s expert testimony includes his almost 35 years of experience in neurology and pediatrics as well as his subspecialty in neuroimaging, he is uniquely situated to provide the most accurate interpretation and testimony regarding the CT scans. Dr. Scheller’s opinion will also be based on an evidence-based medicine approach relying on case documentation. In particular, Dr. Scheller has already reviewed the CT images from this case and has consulted with Dr. Steven Gabaeff regarding additional medical evidence.

6. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION: Professional support services are normally procured on a competitive basis and 411th CSB will continue to procure this service competitively. The purpose of this action is only for the one-time requirement.

7. MARKET RESEARCH: No market research was conducted due to the nature and time constraint of this requirement

8. PROCUREMENT HISTORY:

a. Previous Purchase Order or Contract: ( ) Yes (X ) No

b. Was action competed? ( ) Yes (X ) No

9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE JUSTIFICATION: The general court martial trial schedule to begin 12 Jun 2017.

10. TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION: I certify that the supporting data under cognizance which is included in the Justification and Approval is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Paralegal Specialist

11. FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE DETERMINATION: As Contracting Officer, I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a)(2).

Contracting Officer

12. REVIEW: N/A

13. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S APPROVAL: I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of knowledge and belief. Based on the foregoing, I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Contracting Officer

Date: 2017.03.09 11:14:05 +09'00'

Date: 2017.03.10 09:02:36 +09'00' ou=USA, cn=SPACE.NAN.S.1167722772 Date: 2017.03.10 09:02:53 +09'00'