JEFO_Add_Options_-_USGP_Redacted.pdf

Subject: JEFO 18-10078 Location: Navy Medicine MTFs in Western Region of US

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

1. Identify the agency and contracting activity.

This justification is executed by the Naval Medical Logistics Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland on behalf of Naval Health Clinic Oak Harbor, WA and Naval Health Clinic Hawaii and any associated branch clinics hereafter referred to as the medical treatment facility (MTF).

2. Nature/description of the action/contract type.

Dilligas Corp. dba U.S. Got People (USGP), under current contract N62645-15-D-5024 of the Western Nursing MATO, is providing firm fixed priced task orders for nursing services as outlined in paragraph 3 below.

3. Description of supplies/services.

USGP is currently providing Registered Nurse (4 Individuals) services in support of the Naval Health Clinic Hawaii under current task order N62645-15-D-5024-0001 with a current period of performance of 16 August 2017 – 15 August 2018 with an option period of 16 August 2018 – 30 September 2018.

USGP is currently providing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) (1 Individual), CRNA – On-Call and CRNA – Callback services in support of the Naval Health Clinic Oak Harbor under current task order N62645-15-D-5024 task order N6264518F0152 with a current period of performance of 05 March 2018 – 30 September 2018.

The government intends to execute a bilateral modification to the aforementioned task orders by adding and exercising an option period for 01 October 2018 through 30 September 2019 to allow for the healthcare services to continue at the Medical Treatment Facility while the successor contracts are being awarded to align with the base contract ordering period extension. Modifications will be completed to add these options at the task order level in lieu of creating separate logical follow-on task orders. In addition to the inclusion of these options at the task order level, FAR clause 52.217-9 included in each task order will be revised to correspond with Section F of the basic contracts. This modification will be executed bilaterally utilizing the changes clause under FAR 52.243-1 (Alt. 1).

The estimated value of adding options for the aforementioned services is .

4. Identification of the exception to fair opportunity.

Furthermore, FAR 16.505(B)(2)(i)(C) states that, “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.”

Options are being added to the aforementioned task orders instead of issuing logical follow-on task orders due to the administrative ease of adding options. Each requirement was originally competed in accordance with the applicable contract ordering procedures. Due to the nature of the acquisition for services currently being performed by the contractor under this MATO, it is in the best interest of the Government to negotiate option periods allowing for the most effective use of resources. Recompeting the services currently being filled would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Such costs include the time of technical and contracting personnel to review and evaluate the requirement, proposal and task order; as well as the costs associated with re-credentialing if a new contractor is chosen. No other vendors under this MATO will be disadvantaged as these services would have been extended through a logical follow-on with the same contractor. The option periods will be added to the aforementioned task orders based on there being no change in scope to the current requirement and no changes to the Statement of Work.

5. Determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

In order to determine whether the contractor’s proposed price is fair and reasonable for the additional option period, the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer will review the proposed price against historical pricing and/or current market research information available. If the contractor’s proposed price appears to be questionable for reasonableness, a justification from the contractor will be required in order to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer will determine the price to be fair and reasonable before adding the additional option period.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification.

This contractor is successfully providing services and has already worked through recruitment costs and has established a system for tracking and providing staff that works well at the requiring MTF. Changing contractors could require a complete change in current staff, adding the costs associated with reviewing new credentialing packages and conducting orientation (during which time no services are provided).

7. Statement of actions to remove or overcome barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity.

At this time there are no actions being taken to remove or overcome barriers leading to the exception to fair opportunity under this contract. The current contractor is successfully providing services under this contract. If the contractor does not continue to perform successful services under this contract, then it is possible that these services would be recompeted to all contractors under this MATO through a future competitive task order proposal request to allow contractors to propose pricing and competitively be awarded a task order.

8. By signing in block 11, the Contracting Officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

9. By signing below, the technical or requirements personnel certify that any supporting data that is their responsibility and which forms a basis for the justification is complete and accurate.

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE

Date Program Analyst

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND CONCURRENCE

Office of Counsel Date

10. By signing in block 11, the Approving Official determines that circumstances at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) apply to this task order.

11. Signatures

CONTRACTING OFFICER/APPROVING OFFICIAL below $650,000

Contracting Officer

COMPETITION ADVOCATE/APPROVING OFFICIAL $650,000 or above

Competition Advocate