JA Basis of Design GARB - Maintenance Hangar 472303_26 Jun Doors.pdf

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Agency: US Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, PO Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059

2. Description of Action: Section 888(a) of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense

Authorization Act requires competition on Department of Defense contracts not be limited through the use of brand name or equal descriptions or proprietary specifications or standards, in solicitations, unless a justification is approved in accordance with 10 USC 2304(f). In accordance with DASA(P) Alert 19-108, Brand Name or Equal requires justification for “or equal” descriptions. Approval is requested to indicate that the brand-name or equal products identified in solicitation W912QR20R0069 for Aircraft Hangar door products are used as the basis of design on a new construction contract action to construct an addition and alteration to a Maintenance Hangar at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana are justified on a brand-name or equal basis. The firm-fixed-price construction project is funded with Air Force Reserve

Military Construction (MILCON). The plans and specifications indicate the standard of quality required and the make and model used as basis of design and are only listed because it is necessary to complete a 100% construction designs necessary for a Design-Bid-Build solicitation.

3. Description of the Supplies/Service: The construction contract involves the construction of an addition and alteration to a Maintenance Hangar at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana which requires the installation of a several new features. This project is a FY 20

MILCON project with an expected construction contract award NLT than 30 September

2020. The construction contract estimate is between $10M and $25M. The estimated value of Aircraft Hangar doors with basis of design indicated is approximately $424,500.

This contract action is to be solicited using a Request for Proposal (Federal Acquisition

Regulation ((FAR)) Part 15), awarded on the basis of a Best Value source selection process (FAR 15.101). The design includes 1 instance where Brand-Name or Equal identification is made for aircraft hangar door equipment, with an aggregate value of approximately $424,500. See attachment 1 for a complete list of items, manufacturer, and estimated cost of all items which have a Brand Name indicated to provide offerors insight to the quality of product expected for the design and to aid in understanding the features included for estimating cost bid items.

4. Authority Cited: The statutory authority permitting sole sourcing for this acquisition is

10United States Code 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) 206.302-1(c)(2) requiring a

J&A for Brand-name or Equal descriptions.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. Background. This new construction project requires an aircraft hangar door product. The design must be a comprehensive design package where all proposed materials are coordinated for a cohesive building envelope. To adequately address the design for coordination at all interfaces with the building (roof, wall and floor systems), as well as with building controls, an aircraft hangar door must be selected to completed the design. Selecting an aircraft hangar door as a basis of design is the only feasible solution to meet these requirements and are also required by federal regulations and policies.

b. Justification. It is industry standard practice, while designing intricate envelope systems, to base design around products that meet the needs of the project based on the standard of quality required and the make and model used as basis of design.

As all the components of a system must work together and function as a system, the basis of design of each individual component may change based on substitution. The standard of quality must remain the same as the USACE design.

In addition to a functional system, the products used as the basis of design for the subject project also fit within a specific footprint. The surrounding structural and architectural features require the data from these features when allocating clearances, and to provide proper thermal and weather barriers.

Competition is only limited to the extent necessary to meet the government legitimate needs of this project. Contractors are free to use any product which meets the government’s minimum needs. As indicated on the plans and specifications “all listed manufacturers are the basis of design. Other manufacturers may be substituted as long as the standard of quality and characteristics of the substituted manufacturer meet or exceed the standard of quality and characteristics of the basis of design. Reference FAR clause 52.236-5, Material and Workmanship.

The Materials and Workmanship clause reiterates this point: “References in the drawings and specifications to equipment, material, articles, or patented processes by trade name, make, or catalog number, shall be regarded as establishing a standard of quality and shall not be construed as limiting competition.” The

Contractor may, at its option, use any equipment, material, article, or process that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is determined to be equal through formal evaluation comparison against the specified salient characteristics as provided by the written specifications for each piece of equipment, material, article or process.

Because each manufacturers’ product has slight different specifications, to achieve a 100% design, it is necessary to use one product as the basis of design.

This is because to achieve 100% design, you must consider factors such as flashing, thermal barrier consistency, structural support, electrical and control requirements, enclosure dimensions, as examples and among others. While similar, these elements vary among manufactures and not utilizing one component as the basis of design would leave such ambiguities in the design that it would not have sufficient detail necessary to compete a Design-Bid-Build contract

c. Alternatives. The only potential alternative would be to convert the procurement into a design-build procurement without complete designs. Utilizing a basis of design as assumptions is a critical component of designing complete, functional mechanical and electrical systems. It is impossible to fully design a system to meet requirements without assumptions of specific equipment specifications. The alternative to providing assumptions of equipment and the make and model of the basis of design is to solely list the standard of quality and all characteristics whereby the Contractor can design their own system.

d. Impact. Removing basis of design finishes from our deliverable packages will allow for significant variation in price for Contractors bidding on our solicitation packages. This leads to review of the finish packages during the Source Selection Evaluation Board

(SSEB). Contractors are likely to push back on this requirement, or request additional time for bidding, as the process of selecting finishes, ordering samples and assembling finish binders takes a significant amount of time, as well as cost, to produce.

Contractors are free to use any product which meets the government's minimum requirements and not in conflict with other contract provisions. Unless indicated otherwise on the plans or specifications (e.g. sole-source), all listed manufacturers are the basis of design. For these basis of design products, other manufacturers may be substituted as long as the standard of quality and characteristics of the substituted manufacturer meet or exceed the standard of quality and characteristics of the basis of design.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: C ompetition is obtained to the maximum extent practical while meeting the agency’s requirements by utilizing a specific product only to the extent it is necessary to complete the 100% design, while allowing contractors to use the brand-named or any other product which meets the government’s minimum characteristics and standards of quality.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: This J&A supports a discrete requirement that will end when the project is complete. Therefore, there are no planned actions to increase competition for the requirement covered by this J&A.

8. Market Research: Based on involvement of experts in the field, knowledge of the market, review of product availability, and discussion with multiple manufacturers, there is more than sufficient products available to meet project needs. Items listed in the project plans and specs are provided solely as the necessary basis of design.

9. Interested Sources: The solicitation will be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.201, and responses will be evaluated per FAR Part 15.Based on involvement of experts in the field, knowledge of the market, review of product availability, and discussion with multiple manufacturers, there is more than sufficient products available to meet project needs. Items listed in the project plans and specifications are provided as the basis of design.

10. Other Facts: N/A

1. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

__________________________________ Date: _______________

Cost Engineer

2. Requirements Certification: I hereby determine that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

___________________________________ Date: _______________

Project Manager

3. Fair and Reasonable Cost/Contracting Officer Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost or price to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

This determination was made utilizing market research and independent government estimates.

As part of this basis, indicate whether certified cost or pricing data will be required or if one of the exceptions in FAR 15.403 will apply. I have reviewed this J&A and find the justification adequate to support other than full and open competition.

__________________________________ Date: _______________

Contracting Officer

4. I have reviewed this J&A and find the justification adequate to support other than full and open competition.

___________________________________ Date: ______________

Office of Counsel