JA_Redacted-831404781.pdf

Procurement Title: xxxxxxxx

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION & APPROVAL

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) PART 8 ACQUISITIONS

Multiple Award Schedule (MAS)/Multiple Award Contract Orders under MAS/General Services Administration (GSA)/Federal Supply Schedules (FSS)

FAR 8.405-6

Purchase Request Number: 831404781.00 Contract Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Task/Delivery Order Number: xxxx Procurement Title: Systems, Applications, and Products (SAP) Support Services for Enterprise Business System (EBS) Real Property (RP) Solution Contracting Office: Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO)-Scott/PL83xx Estimated Value: xxxxxx Limited Source Authority: FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C)

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

J&A Number: xxxxxx

Upon the basis of the following justification, I, as PROCURING ACTIVITY COMPETITION ADVOCATE, hereby approve this limited source justification in accordance with FAR8.405- 6(a)(1)(i)(C), The acquisition referenced herein is conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program.

JUSTIFICATION

1. REQUIRING AGENCY AND CONTRACTING OFFICE:

a. Requiring Agency:

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

b. Contracting Office:

DISA/DITCO/PL83xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2. NATURE/DESCRIPTION OF ACTION(S):

a. The purpose of this Justification and Approval (J&A) is to procure configuration services for existing EBS RP SAP modules. Xxxxxx requires support to remediate and configure 49 recommended areas of improvement that were identified in their EBS RP SAP modules. The work includes, but is not limited to Real Estate Flexible Module; Project Systems Module; Plant

Maintenance Module; Business Intelligence; Business Warehouse, and includes all aspects of software, hardware, security, training, and quality assurance support services.

b. The nature of this action is to award a firm-fixed price task order to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx against the Department of Defense (DoD) Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI) Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA). The period of performance is one year from date of award with one 1-month option. The estimated award date is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Fiscal Year 2014 funds are provided under Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The applicable North American Industry Classification System code is XXXXXX. The total estimated life cycle cost of this acquisition is xxxx.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES:

a. In 2009, XXX adopted an SAP-based platform, EBS, to warehouse and manage the

XXXXX Real Property Inventory. EBS is a modular-based system with modules to address and integrate all aspects of property recording, financials, programming, managing, and reporting.

b. The purpose of this requirement is to obtain support for the configuration of the XXX

Real Property Division for existing EBS Real Property SAP modules. This plan and analysis phase will optimize and standardize EBS Real Property. The contractor will provide support through independent, objective review of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX as well as SAP Business Intelligence and SAP Business Warehouse in the context of managing XXXXXXXXX real property. Additionally, the contractor provides support for the detailed configuration plan of each recommendation and any subsequent effort required to complete the configuration.

c. In addition, tasks for configuration support services for the enterprise energy information management solution and Geographic Information System are also included under this task order. The configuration for these systems requires use of the same expertise that will be utilized for configuration and remediation of the 49 areas of improvement. The government’s cost estimate XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF LIMITED SOURCE AUTHORITY AND DEMONSTRATION OF

CONTRACTOR’S UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS: 8.405(a)(1)(i)(C)

a. Circumstances Justifying Limiting the Source. In accordance with FAR 8.405-6

(a)(1)(i)(C), in the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order, and the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order was not previously issued under sole-source or limited-source procedures.

b. Description of the Justification. In 2013, DITCO awarded

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for the procurement of brand name SAP software licenses and services in support of the XXXXX EBS RP modules. EBS is configured with SAP software; the code is proprietary and only available from SAP and its authorized resellers.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The request for quotation (RFQ) was posted on the General Services Administration (GSA) eBuy XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX.

The purpose of the original task order was to complete a systems review of all RP modules and identify opportunities for improved process standardization, risks, and garnered recommendations for improved utilization of XXXX current capability. SAP identified 49 vulnerabilities XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

c. Justification:

(1) Minimum Government requirements. The government requires support to remediate the 49 vulnerabilities that were discovered Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, The original task order identified risk and discrepancies with the SAP modules; the new work resolves the discrepancies that were identified. Limiting the source is necessary because the tasks for both the original award and the new award are interrelated and a follow-on to the company who identified the 49 vulnerabilities is a more logical approach versus a recompete.

(2) Proposed sole source contractor. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the proposed contractor for the acquisition. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the incumbent of task order xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that identified the 49 vulnerabilities during the performance of said task order; however, they were unable to resolve the vulnerabilities because it was determined to be out of scope of the original task order award.

To date, the government has spent xxxxxxxxxxxxx to identify errors or vulnerabilities which affected the EBS environment. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The use of xxxxxxxxxxxxt eliminates the need for any costs and time delays associated with a transition period and the required expertise is already in place to begin performance immediately, eliminating any addition costs associated with a transitional period. The additional cost estimates are derived from historical data.

(3) Discussion regarding cause of the limited source situation. This is a follow on effort to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, where 49 vulnerabilities to the SAP software were identified. The resolution of the vulnerabilities could not be resolved under that task order because the tasks were determined to be out of scope. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx result in duplication of cost to the government and unacceptable time delays to remedy the vulnerabilities.

(4) Demonstration of limited source. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx a follow-on with xxxxxxxxxxxxx is the logical strategy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(5) Procurement discussion. The current task order, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx expires xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and the new work to correct the discrepancies is projected to begin xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Because xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a transitional period from one contractor to another will not be required and performance of the new work will begin immediately to allow the continuation support in correcting vulnerabilities and achievement of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This will be done with very little to no disruption to the government.

The new work is a logical follow-on to the original FSS BPA order; this strategy optimizes the effort and continuation of the configuration process.

(6) Impact. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx The following are a few of the many discrepancies that compromise the integrity of information retrieved from the SAP tools. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-Audit failure from inconsistencies between master records and associated financial data.

The auditability is a major impact to xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx x xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx. The ‘work around’ requires the manual effort of approximately 43 customer reports. The ongoing manual efforts are an unnecessarily labor intensive process which has averaged 200 hours per month since the discovery of the discrepancy. With the increased number of sites xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx

-Unreliable information has a negative impact on report execution performance which results in increased maintenance costs incurred by the government to maintain a separate external reporting tool each month the vulnerabilities go unresolved.

-There is no executive level reporting capability to guide strategy, planning, and enterprise level operational performance resulting in limited visibility of operational performance and trends. There is poor data integrity and inadequate transactional data for decision making.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It is not cost effective for continued operations without full functionality of SAP capabilities. Without resolution, the government continues to incur costs and utilize additional labor hours to accomplish these tasks manually. Based on the Procurement

Action Lead Times, it would take at least xxxxxx to compete the requirement and bring a contractor on board to begin the resolution. Given the auditability of the program, this timeframe is too long to address the vulnerabilities.

5. BEST VALUE DETERMINATION:

By placing an order against a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xx using the procedures in FAR 8.405-3, the contracting officer has determined that the order represents the best value to the government (as defined in FAR 2.101) and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the government's needs.

Although GSA has already negotiated fair and reasonable pricing, the contracting officer will make a determination as to whether the prices are fair and reasonable based on comparison of proposed prices to historical and existing prices paid, comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of the same commodities, and/or comparison to the independent government cost estimate. Discounts from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which have previously been determined by GSA to provide the government with pricing advantages, will be sought prior to award.

6. MARKET RESEARCH:

Market research was conducted in xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

7. ANY OTHER SUPPORTING FACTS: None

8. ACTIONS THE AGENCY MAY TAKE TO REMOVE BARRIERS THAT LED TO THE

RESTRICTED CONSIDERATION:

Procurement history:

1. Task order number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Contractor: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Period of Performance: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Task order value: xxxxxxxxxxxx Contract type: Firm Fixed Price Scope: Procure SAP software licenses and support

2. The acquisition was competed on GSA for authorized SAP resellers xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

3. The brand name J&A (xxxxxxx) for SAP software licenses and services was approved September 17, xxxxx.

9. REFERENCE TO THE APPROVED ACQUISITION PLAN (AP):

An AP is not required for this requirement; however a Memorandum for Record for Sole Source 'High-Risk' Acquisition Planning was completed IAW DARS 7.103(S-90).

TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the J&A are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C))

NAME: xxxxxxxxxx SIGNATURE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TITLE/ORGANIZATION: Contracting Officer’s Representative

PHONE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DATE: September 18, xxxx

REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the J&A are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C))

NAME: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SIGNATURE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TITLE/ORGANIZATION: Contracting Officer’s Representative

PHONE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DATE:September 18, xxxx

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx SIGNATURE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TITLE/ORGANIZATION: DISA/DITCO Contracting Officer

PHONE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DATE: September 18, xxxx

PROCURING ACTIVITY COMPETITION ADVOCATE APPROVAL: I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Since this justification does not exceed $12.5M, this review serves as approval. (FAR 8.405- 6(a)(1)(i)(C))

NAME: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SIGNATURE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TITLE/ORGANIZATION: Procuring Activity Competition Advocate

PHONE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DATE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS JUSTIFICATION ARE TO BE REFERRED TO

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx7.