JA Rate Case Intervention Ft. Sill CUP - all signatures 1_Redacted.pdf

Version – March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Sole Source Justification

FAR 6.302-3 Expert Services

1. Contracting Activity: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntsville Center, RG300, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

2. Description of Action: The Department of Defense (DOD), specifically for Fort Sill and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) requests a new firm fixed price contract with Brubaker and Associates, Inc. (BAI). The Government projects award for May 2024 and fiscal year 2024, using Operations and Maintenance funds with PR&C .

3. Description of Supplies/Services: On February 28, 2024, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO or Company) filed an application to change rates with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC or Commission). PSO is requesting a net increase of $214 million per year to its current rates. Direct testimony is scheduled to be filed no later than June 10, 2024.

This rate intervention is to ensure fair and equitable charges for the Department of Defense (DOD), specifically for Fort Sill and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) that are located within the Company's service territory.

Services shall provide expert witness services, evaluation of Return on Equity (ROE), Cost of Service (COS), Revenue Requirement (RR), and Rate Design assistance to the Commercial Utilities Program (CUP) Program Manager and the USALSA-ELD in the upcoming proceedings and hearings. The Contractor shall also provide expert witness services and testimony in opposition to the Company’s formula base rate proposal. Additionally, the Contractor shall prepare a written report of recommendations regarding corresponding positions the Government should take in the Company’s rate filing proceeding. The Contractor shall review the pertinent documents filed with the Commission, provide technical assistance and guidance, and provide testimony or comments, both written and oral, to the Commission to assist the Department of Defense (DOD) on the potential impact of the proceeding and rulings as it pertains to these filings. The Contractor shall review Army briefs, position papers, and discuss Army goals.

Period of Performance: 52 weeks after receipt of order (ARO).

Total Value: $

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(3) or 41 U.S.C.3304(a)(3), as implemented by FAR 6.302-3, Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or research capability; or expert services.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(3) The head of an agency may use procedures other than competitive procedures only when it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources in order to procure the services of an expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the Federal Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any court, administrative tribunal, or

Version – March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY agency, or to procure the services of an expert or neutral for use in any part of an alternative dispute resolution or negotiated rulemaking process, whether or not the expert is expected to testify.

41 U.S.C.3304(a)(3) further allows agencies to award sole source actions to procure the services of an expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the Federal Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before a court, administrative tribunal, or agency, whether or not the expert is expected to testify; or to procure the services of an expert or neutral for use in any part of an alternative dispute resolution or negotiated rulemaking process, whether or not the expert is expected to testify;

As described in FAR 6.302-3(b)(1)(iii), full and open competition need not be provided for when it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: The Government has selected BAI because its consultants have superior expertise and experience for these unique issues when compared to the other firms considered. Further, BAI is not conflicted from this case, and is readily available and appropriately staffed to consult and testify (as may be needed) to meet the scheduled deadlines in this case.

The lead attorney in this case has experience in the field of utility rate litigation, having interacted with various expert witnesses from different consulting firms. Based on the attorney’s knowledge of expert witnesses who provide testimony in utility rate cases, the ULFSC has determined BAI is the most capable firm that can provide the consultation and testimony necessary to advance the legal interests of FEA in this case.

In accordance with FAR 5.202(a)(14), this action will not be synopsized.

Because this is a sole source action, effective competition is not applicable.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: Due to the time constraints placed upon the Government to secure experts for utility rate litigation, is it usually not possible to compete the requirements.

However, the Government will continue to perform market research and evaluate opportunities compete future requirements when practical to do so.

8. Market Research: BAI is not conflicted from this case and is readily available and appropriately staffed to consult and testify (as may be needed) to meet the scheduled deadlines in this case.

9. Interested Sources: In accordance with FAR 5.202(a)(14), this action will not be synopsized.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History – There is no prior procurement history for this action.