JA Redacted 21C0006P00078 DPG 26Nov24.pdf

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL FOR

OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Program/Equipment: United States Army Test & Evaluation Command (ATEC) West Desert Test Center (WDTC) requires Mission Support Services (MSS).

Authority: 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302- 1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements

Amount:

Prepared by:

Contracting Officer:

Technical:

Requirements:

l

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

FAR Part 6 Justification and Approval for

Other than Full and Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity: United States Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) - Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), 5330 Valdez Circle, Mail Stop 1, Dugway Proving Ground, UT 84022-5001

2. Description of Action: The United States Army Test & Evaluation Command (ATEC) West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, requests approval of a increase in total contract ceiling as a result of the Request for Proposal (RFP) not addressing overtime or providing instructions to offerors and the lack of addressing anticipated overtime, understating actual labor support, and the necessity to add labor categories under the Mission Support Services (MSS), Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract (W91151-21-C-0006) with Jacobs Technologies Inc., 1030 Titan Court Ste 200, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547-6638. The inaccurate accounting of these contract costs in the RFP, and submitted proposals by offerors, have resulted in a significant difference between actual costs and forecasted costs for the base year plus four (4) option period contract that has resulted in the contract ceiling being encroached much sooner than reasonable nor anticipated. The increase in cost will be incrementally funded through Contract Work Orders (CWOs) issued under the contract. Some CWOs to be funded with ATEC/WDTC WD1 funding;

and others with DPG customer funds for test support provided by DPG.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The WDTC, located on U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, plans, conducts, evaluates, and reports on developmental, operational tests and supports Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) development, training to assess the military value of Chemical and Biological (CB) defense systems, incendiary smoke/obscuration munitions systems, and related operational concepts. WDTC plans, conducts, evaluates, reports, and supports CB and non-CB testing efforts for the Department of Defense (DOD), other federal agencies, private industries, and foreign Governments (e.g., environmental assessment/impact evaluations, weapons and munitions demilitarization, chemical energetics/homemade explosive testing, unmanned systems testing, direct and indirect fire weapons testing, hazard assessments, and technical/logistical support of operations at DPG). WDTC programs include CB detection, decontamination, and protection devices, evaluation of munitions, testing to determine Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) contamination and decontamination survivability of various DOD materiel and equipment along with a wide range of developmental testing and applied research related to TTP. Test procedures involve energetic and non-energetic indirect fire systems, physical and environmental stress testing, human factors engineering, methodology development and implementation, accelerated climatic storage, contamination/decontamination evaluations, and performance and reliability testing of items in the field or within enclosed chambers. The Contractor provides qualified and appropriately trained personnel necessary to work in Government facilities, laboratories, chambers, or field and range locations throughout WDTC.

Period of Performance: 02 December 2024 � 23 December 2025

Total Value:

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. §3204(a)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302- 1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B), when the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for, and services may be deemed to be available only from the original source for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency�s requirements. As a Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) for the U.S. Army, an interruption of services or a need to recompete prematurely are not optimal and could risk mission success. No other contractor can assume the current MSS mission with full performance by 25 December 2024 without interrupting ongoing Test Center Operations.

a. Discussion of Overtime Hours prior to contract award.

1) Solicitation, W91151-20-R-0002, received proposals and award, W91151-21-C-0006, was made to Jacobs Technologies, LLC (Jacobs) on 21 January 2021. This award was a best value tradeoff analysis conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government selected the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Cost Factors. The Government�s award to Jacobs was deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFARS.

2) This is a cost-plus fixed fee (CPFF) term contract arrangement for which the Government provided a historical average baseline staffing in the Request for Proposal (RFP), for reference only. The baseline data represented the workload performed during the prior contract necessary to accomplish past efforts. Several instructions provided to the offeror indicated and directed that no overtime was to be considered nor required in the offeror�s submitted Price Volumes as part of a proposal.

3) The Performance Work Statement (PWS) is silent to overtime requirements other than paragraph 1.4.4, CWO Tracking/Cost Management System, that indicates the system will include all costs to include overtime.

4) The original RFP (W91151-R-0002) references overtime 4 times. Three of the four instances are FAR Clause references and the last, is addressing an offeror�s methodology of decreasing workload and converting straight time to overtime.

5) ATTACHMENT 1 � Cost-Proposal Format is an Excel spreadsheet created by the Government and provided to offerors to calculate and present their Price Volume as part of their proposal. A review of the spreadsheet indicates and verifies the Government did not expect or allow offerors to calculate overtime as part of contract total cost.

6) RFP W91151-20-R-0002 amendment 03, states the following under Volume V: Cost/Price (Factor 4), in regard to instructions pertaining to overtime.

- Labor hours and staffing: a) This is a cost-plus fixed fee term contract arrangement, and the Government is providing the historical average baseline staffing for reference only. This type of baseline data represents the workload which has been necessary to accomplish past efforts. This data is not prospective looking nor does it account for innovation and creativity. It also does not account for rapid increases or decreases in workload requirements. b) This historical baseline staffing hours by category is being provided in Technical Exhibit (TE) AA for reference. Offerors can deviate from the technical exhibit�s labor mix and hours to provide creative and innovative solutions and determine the best way it may accomplish the PWS requirements provided it provides sound rationale and a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS. Per FAR Part 22, overtime is not being solicited for and is only referenced in TE AA to provide the historical perspective. If it becomes apparent during negotiations overtime will be required in contract performance, the procedures in FAR 22.103-3 will be followed to include information required by FAR clause 52.222-2.

7) RFP W91151-20-R-0002 amendment 06 responds to an offeror�s question related to overtime and the government�s instructions related to Volume V: Cost/Price.

The vendor question and the Government�s response are as follows:

- Vendor Question: To level the playing field, would the Government consider using the language of the draft RFP that stated that �The staffing by labor category and contract period is provided at Exhibit A. Offerors shall not deviate from Exhibit A except as instructed on the Exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime.� This approach will prevent the incumbent from having an unfair, competitive advantage of having current and future test information since the RFP contains no workload predictions, long-term test schedules, or historical trend data that is typically used to predict out-year staffing.

- Government Response: The Government has provided the same historical data to all interested parties. This data shows the actual average historical amount of work (hours, labor mix) per year that has been required in the past to accomplish the mission. It is up to each offeror to understand the contract requirements and the PWS and submit a viable offer which will satisfy the government needs. This approach provides each offeror the flexibility to utilize its own economic efficiencies and the ability to provide its unique solution. The government is being consistent and fair in its approach by providing the same historical information to all interested parties including the incumbent. Each offeror must utilize its own techniques, assumptions, forecast modeling, and expertise to forecast the out-years based on the performance work statement. Again, offerors may deviate from the hours on TE AA, as long as detailed explanations are provided which allow the government team to conduct a proper evaluation in accordance with the solicitation.

8) An inspection of the Volume V: Cost/Price, Attachment 1 submission of the offerors clearly demonstrates that both understood instructions given in the RFP and no overtime costs are included. The awarded contract to Jacobs at a total contract value of does not include any overtime costs.

9) It was recognized in the January 2023 time frame that contract pre-award decisions to not include overtime in this labor-intensive contract was a government misjudgment and the impact to contract ceiling cost is significant. Jacobs� payroll and accounting systems have confirmed that hours of overtime have been worked under this contract to date. All overtime was submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Government in accordance with FAR 22.103-1 and 52.222-2 refenced above. The total amount of impact to the contract ceiling, as of 30 Apr 2024, is Calculating this increase for the total 5-year period of the contract plus six additional months if FAR Clause 52.217-8 is fully exercised, will result in an estimated increase in the contract ceiling cost of approximately . Compensating for contract approved salary and anticipated Department of Labor area wage determination increases will further increase this forecast to .

b. Effect of Unplanned Increase in Contract Work Orders.

1) The MSS contract is and has always been a labor-intensive contract.

Dugway�s significant external customer training and unique mission requirements involving testing of equipment designed to address threats from global adversaries, dictate the amount of contract support needed under this contract. As stated above, a historical baseline of staffing hours by category was provided in TE AA for reference and this data reflects the actual average historical amount of work (hours, labor mix) per year that had been required in the past to accomplish the WDTC mission.

2) Proposing offerors were instructed to understand the contract requirements and the PWS and submit a viable offer which will satisfy the government needs. What was not quantified in the PWS was the number of Contract Work Orders (CWO) that could possibly be assigned during the performance period of the contract. The PWS indicated the following in paragraph 1.4: �Specific work requirements, performance criteria, and quality control requirements will be tasked on each Contract Work Order (CWO). CWOs will be issued by the Contracting Officer (KO) defining the specific requirements or tasks to be performed by the Contractor. Each CWO defines the shortened period of performance of the current MSS contract requirement and put continued support at risk. The MICC-TSC is procuring the follow-on contract to MSS and the procurement milestones for this requirement rely upon the full period of performance originally offered under this contract at time of award. Shortening the current contract is not a viable alternative.

e. Impact if not approved: Disapproval of the J&A will create a lapse in service;

thereby, resulting in ATEC / WDTC�s failure to execute its mission and a negative impact to numerous support mission test partners and the warfighter. As discussed above, attempting to compete this interim requirement would result in unreasonable delays and would cause mission failure for ATEC / WDTC due to the lack of contract support. An award to any other source would result in a substantial duplication of costs of to the Government. These costs would include mobilization of a new vendor to a remote location, phase-in of the new vendor, and the transfer of Government Furnished Property between vendors; and then likely incurred again when the follow-on contract is awarded in less than two-years.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: A Sources Sought Notice Waiver was approved 4 November 2024 in lieu of publishing a Sources Sought Notification (SSN) as required by FAR 5.201. A Notice of Intent to sole source the ceiling increase was published to the Government point of entry, System for Award Management (SAM) at http://www.SAM.gov from 08 October 2024 to 14 October 2024. No interest was received.

a. Effective Competition: Because this is a sole source action; effective competition is not applicable. Market research does indicate there will be adequate interest to compete the follow-on MISS projected for award in December 2025 assuming no six (6) month service extension IAW FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services is required.

b. Subcontracting Competition: The current contractor, Jacobs, is a large business, and will continue to comply with FAR 52.219-8, �Utilization of Small Business� by maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business to continue to support this contract requirement. Jacobs� Small Business Participation Plan will remain intact and the requirement for semiannual Individual Subcontract Report and/or Summary Subcontract Report using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), in accordance with FAR 51.219-9 will continue. All subcontracts shall be competed, and maximum opportunity given to small businesses and socio-economic concerns when utilized. This action is an interim solution until the follow-on contract is completed. The Government shall request a revised subcontracting plan from Jacobs Technology and will coordinate review and concurrence of this document with the SBP and SBA PCR prior to award IAW FAR 19.705-4(d)(7). Additionally, the plan shall be approved by the Contracting Officer and incorporated and made a material part of the contract as required by FAR 19.705-5(a)(5). The contractor will be required to obtain as much competition as possible for any part of the requirement that is subcontracted and give maximum opportunity to small businesses.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: A sources sought synopsis will be posted to the System for Award Management website for the follow-on competitive procurement.

It is anticipated there will be significant interest in the follow-on contract by many federal defense contractors as there have already been unsolicited inquiries from Battelle, Booz Allen, Deltek, Govexcel, Leidos, and Maximus. The procuring contracting office, MICC-Theater Support Center (MICC-TSC), projects award in December 2025.

8. Market Research: This is an interim action to allow continued performance with the incumbent contractor and permit the MICC-TSC to complete the procurement while adhering to the established milestones for the competitive follow-on MSS requirement. Minimal market research was accomplished for this interim action.

9. Interested Sources: No interest was received in response to the Notice of Intent to sole source the contract ceiling amount increase.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History: The MSS requirement has historically been awarded to large businesses with the recent history awarded as a CPFF contract type.

b. Contract DAAD09-86-D-0001 was awarded on 01 November 1985 to Lockheed Martin Engineering and Management Services Company (a large business), as a Time and Materials (T&M) requirement type contract for a performance from 01 November 1985 to 15 March 1991.

c. Contract DAAD09-91-D-0008 was awarded on 16 March 1991 to Lockheed Martin Engineering and Management Services Company (a large business), as a T&M requirement type contract for a performance from 16 March 1991 to 23 September 1996.

d. Contract DAAD09-96-D-0004 was awarded on 24 September 1996 to Lockheed Martin Engineering and Management Services Company (a large business), as a T&M contract for a performance from 24 September 1996 to 23 March 2004.

e. Contract W911S6-04-C-0002 was awarded on 24 March 2004 to Jacobs Engineering Group (a large business), as a CPFF contract for a performance from 24 March 2004 to 23 March 2019

f. Contract W911S6-19-C-0004 was awarded as a bridge on 24 March 2019 to Jacobs Engineering Group (a large business), as a CPFF contract for a performance from 24 March 2019 to 24 February 2021.

g. Contract W91151-21-C-0006 was awarded on 21 January 2021 to Jacobs Technology Inc. (a large business), as a CPFF contract for a performance from 24 February 2021 to 23 December 2025.

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the increase in contract total cost for the ATEC/WDTC Mission Support Service (MSS) contract on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of Title 10 United States Code §3204(a)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1(a)(2), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

The value of the modification is to cover contract support requirements through 23 December 2025, the remaining performance period under the current contract. The approval is subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services or supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.