JA for Brand Name or Equal-BAR TG 012320 Redacted Copy1_signed ssw.pdf

Control Number: LRN 20-02

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Program/Equipment: Barkley Power Plant Turbine Generator Rehabilitation; Kuttawa, KY Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1 ) Amount: $613,800.00

Prepared by: Typed Name: Kristal Jones Title: Contract Specialist Phone: (615) 736-7916 E-mail: Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil Contracting Officer:

Typed Name: Stacy Wiggins Title: Contracting Officer Phone: (615) 736-7944 E-mail: Stacy.S.Wiggins@usace.army.mil Technical Representative:

Typed Name: Brad Cressman Title: Mechanical Engineer Phone: (615) 736-2865 Requirements Representative:

Typed Name: Dana Sexton

Title: Project Manager Phone: (615) 736-7162

Signatures are required below.

I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

District Small Business Specialist Typed Name: Susan Nicholson Phone: (615) 736-7569

Signature: Date:

Project Manager Typed Name: Dana Sexton Phone: (615) 736-7162

Signature: Date:

Assistant District Counsel Typed Name: Johanna Anderson Phone: (615) 736-5688 mailto:Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil mailto:Stacy.S.Wiggins@usace.army.mil

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL (J&A)

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Agency: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District

(LRN)

2. Description of the Action: Section 888(a) of the Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Pub. L. 114-328) 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) Policy 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 No. W912P519B0003 are used as the basis of design on a new construction contract action to rehabilitate turbine-generator units 1, 2, 3 and 4 at Barkley Power Plant are justified on a brand name or equal basis. The firm-fixed-price construction project is funded through Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000, which uses funds generated by the sale of federal hydropower to rehabilitate aging infrastructure. 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 the 100% construction designs necessary for a Design-Bid-Build solicitation.

3. Description of Supplies/Services or Nature of Construction: The construction contract includes full turbine and generator rehabilitation on Units 2, 3, and 4 and a turbine refurbishment on Unit 1 at the Barkley Power Plant in Kuttawa, Kentucky. The contract also includes converting grease-filled to oil-filled hubs and adding vibration monitoring.

The period of performance for this project, including the exercising of options, is 2,555 calendar days from Notice to Proceed (NTP). The construction contract estimate, including option line items, is approximately $90M. The estimated value of equipment and materials included in the contract documents as Brand Name or Equal is approximately $613,800, approximately 0.682% of the total estimated contract value.

This contract action is to be solicited using an Invitation for Bid (IFB) (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 14), with Definitive Responsibility Criteria (DRC). The use of DRC is authorized per FAR 9.104-2, Special Standards, and recognized in case law. Vador Ventures, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-296394, 2005 CPD ¶ 155. The contract award will be based on the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the total of the base contract and all options.

The design includes 32 separate instances where Brand Name or Equal identification is made, with an aggregate value of approximately $613,800. See Attachment 1 for a complete list of items, manufacturer, and estimated cost of all items which have a brand name indicated to provide bidders insight into the quality of product expected for the design and to aid in understanding the features included for estimating the cost of bid items.

4. Authority Cited: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition for this acquisition is 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. In accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 206.302-1(c)(2) and section 888(a) of the NDAA for FY17 (Pub. L. 114-328), this J&A is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. Background. The Barkley Power Plant was placed in service in 1966. The aging equipment is beginning to experience more frequent outages and loss of efficiency. The equipment has a designed service life of 35 years, but has been in service for 53 years and is experiencing declining efficiency, increased maintenance, and forced outages. The objective of this procurement action is to improve the efficiency and reliability of the turbine generator equipment. The new turbine generators must not only reliably function as a system, but also fit within the existing building footprint and be compatible with existing systems in the power plant without major modification.

b. Justification.

It is industry standard practice, while designing intricate mechanical and electrical 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 forming a functional system, the products used as the basis of design for the subject project also fit within a specific footprint. Significant effort was undertaken by the Government to research and identify the individual components needed to design a complex integrated instrumentation system capable of meeting the project’s needs and standards. Not utilizing one component as the basis for design would leave such ambiguities in the design that it would not have sufficient detail necessary to complete the contract successfully or would require excessive and unnecessary work by the contractor for components that are commercially available, off-the-shelf items considered accessory components within the turbine-generator industry.

Competition is only limited to the extent necessary to meet the Government’s legitimate needs for this project. Contractors are free to use any product which meets the Government’s minimum needs. As indicated in the specifications “all materials, parts, and components supplied shall be new and unissued and of the best available kid and quality. Workmanship shall be of the highest grade and in accordance with the best modern standard practice.”

Reference clause FAR 52.236-5, Material and Workmanship.” See Attachment 1 for the specification references.

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 slightly different specifications, to achieve a 100% design, it is necessary to identify one (1) product (in each of the 32 Brand Name or Equal instances) as the basis of design. This is because to achieve 100% design, one must consider how existing systems in the power plant will be connected and aligned. While similar, these elements vary among manufactures and not utilizing one (1) 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 alternative would be to remove all instances of Brand Name or Equal in the specifications and instead define requirements by salient features and performance characteristics. This would delay contract award by at least three (3) months. Furthermore, it would increase the necessary effort by the Government to review Contractor’s proposed systems, including all components, to ensure that they are acceptable. This alternative would increase risk to the Government, as an oversight or omission when describing salient characteristics could lead to a component of the system not functioning as intended, and it increases the likelihood that the Contractor will propose an instrumentation system that does not meet project needs. Utilizing a basis of design with certain equipment specifications assumptions is a critical component of designing a complete, functional mechanical and electrical system.

d. Impact. Listing acceptable products by reference to Brand Name or Equal limits competition by increasing the likelihood that the Contractor will acquire the brand name products referenced. However, as noted in the specifications, the Contractor is allowed to submit any other product which meets the Government’s minimum characteristics and standards of quality. Due to the specialized equipment, integrated nature of the total system, and relatively low cost of individual components, listing the products by Brand Name or Equal is not expected to have a significant impact. Further, eliminating the basis of design elements would limit the Government’s ability to control the design, impact the installation and layout of adjacent systems, and adversely affect the ongoing operation and maintenance of the equipment.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition. Competition 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 either the brand name or any other product that meets the Government’s minimum characteristics and standards of quality. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Sole Source was posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) (www.fbo.gov) on 10 September 2019 which stated the intent to utilize Brand Name or Equal requirements in the plans and specifications. No responses were received from industry pertaining to the brand name or equal items.

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.

Further, market research indicates that contractors bids could be less accurate for USACE turbine-generator rehabilitation projects if the specifications are not clear for small components. The manufacturer of a turbine-generator does not want to spend considerable engineering time reading through long specifications of salient features to determine the desired qualities of parts that are incidental to the larger project. The manufacturer’s experience is on the design, construction, and testing of turbine-generators, whereas these accessories are small components to be incorporated into the turbine-generators.

8. Market Research: A NOI to Sole Source was posted to FBO by the District on 10 September 2019 and no responses were received from industry. Based on involvement of experts in the field, knowledge of the market, review of product availability, and discussion with multiple manufacturers, there are more than sufficient products available to meet project needs. Items listed in the project’s plans and specifications are provided solely as examples and Contractors are not required to use the specific brand identified.

9. Interested Sources: There were no responses to the NOI posting. The solicitation will be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.201, and bids will be evaluated per FAR Part 14 and the DRC set forth in the solicitation. Based on involvement of experts in the field, knowledge of the market, review of product availability, and discussion with multiple manufacturers, there are more than sufficient products available to meet project needs.

http://www.fbo.gov/

10. Other Factors: None.

11. Technical Certification

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Brad Cressman Date: ______________________________________

Title: Technical Lead Signature: __________________________________

12. Requirements Certification

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Dana Sexton Date: ______________________________________

Title: Project Manager Signature: __________________________________

13. Fair and Reasonable Price 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.

Certified cost or pricing data is not required. It is anticipated that this solicitation will receive competition from two or more responsible bidders utilizing the procedures in FAR Part 14.

Name: Stacy S. Wiggins Date: ____________________________________

Title: Contracting Officer Signature: __________________________________

14. Contracting Officer Certification and Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of the brand name or equal items listed in Attachment 1 for the turbine generator rehabilitation project at Barkley Power Plant in Kuttawa, Kentucky, estimated at $613,800 on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(1), subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Date: ___________________________ Signature: _____________________________ Stacy S. Wiggins Contracting Officer

Attachment 1 – Complete List of ‘Brand Name or Equal’ Items

No. Manufacturer Item Specification Reference Estimated Cost

1 Office Star Models 5560 or 2300 01 50 00; Para 3.5.1.1.c $1,000 2 Tractel Tirfor Griphoists 05 50 14; Para 1.4.e $1,000 3 Crosby Turnbuckles 05 50 14; Para 2.1.12 $1,000 4 Crosby Shackles 05 50 14; Para 2.1.13 $1,000 5 Crosby Swivel Hooks 05 50 14; Para 2.1.14 $1,000 6 Crosby Swivel Hoist Rungs 05 50 14; Para 2.1.15 $1,000 7 PPG Betonel Delux 8574 Bleu 09 97 02; Para 3.5 $10,000 8 NIBCO F-515-CS-F-66-FS 22 00 00.00 26; Para 2.5.4.b $1,000 9 NIBCO F-515-S6-F-66-FS 22 00 00.00 26; Para 2.5.4.c $1,000 10 Maxi-Bolt Anchors 22 00 00.00 26; Para 2.6 $1,000 11 Baron Model BA-LV-150 Vacuum Oil Purifier 22 00 00.00 26; Para 3.5.2 $57,500 12 Jerguson Magnicator II Point Level Switch 22 00 00.00 26; Para 3.6 $5,000 13 BSM Pump Rotary Gear

Pump 00-Series for 1000 SSU 22 00 00.00 26; Para 3.7.1 $5,000

14 Oilskimmers Inc. Model V6 22 00 00.00 26; Para 3.11 $10,000 15 Farval CS2000 22 00 00.00 26; Para 3.12 $40,000 16 ABB RGW6-ST-1 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.4.3 $100 17 Dwyer Proximity Series CLS2 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.12 $5,000 18 Fenwal DETECT-A-FIRE 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.17 $5,000 19 Yokogawa Model # AXF040C-E1AL1L-BA11-

21B/FF1

26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.2 $15,000

20 Dwyer RTD Model # RTD-646 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.9 $5,000 21 Absolute Process

Instruments Model # 1420GA-P-HH-U 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.1 $5,000

22 Weschler Instruments Model # BG-241TC 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.11 $20,000 23 IDEC Corporation Model # PS5R-D24 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.13 $5,000 24 Absolute Process

Instruments Model # 1020GA-P-LL-U 26 05 00.00.26; Para 2.14 $5,000

25 Loctite Gasket Eliminator No. 504 48 13 13.02 26; Para 3.10.5 $100 26 Chesterton

Garlock 1750 or 1760 PTFE/Graphite Style 1965 PTFE/Graphite

48 13 13.01 26; Para 2.4.a $1,000

27 Garlock 1333-G Graphite Packing 48 13 13.01 26; Para 2.4.b $1,000 28 Parker Packing Company

James Walker Polypak LoFilm Shallex

48 13 13.04 26; Para 3.15.3 $80,000

29 NIBCO Type T-FP-600N 48 13 13.04 26; Para 3.26.3 $5,000 30 Zep Iron Clad 48 13 13.07 26; Para 3.4.6 $100 31 Scan-Pac RF42 48 13 13.24 26; Para 2.6 $5,000 32 Iris Power Engineering, Inc.

Model PDA-IV 48 13 16.00 26; Para 2.10.5 $320,000

TOTAL: $613,800

Date4_af_date: 1/27/2020