JOFOC_1.pdf

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

In accordance with the authority granted under 41 U.S.C. 253(c), this request for award under other than full and open competition is hereby submitted.

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity:

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The action being approved is a sole-source contract with the State of Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) (also known as the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office). It is to provide specific data and data-management products needed by BLM for BLM’s management of archaeological sites on BLM land in Alaska, further described below after an explanation of laws and regulations significant for this request.

There is no other firm, office, or entity that can provided the needed products. This is because the OHA has a unique legal relationship with the entire federal government in Alaska, including BLM, and is the central repository for information on all archaeological sites in Alaska, which would not be legal for any other office, firm, or entity even to have access to. Both will be explained.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 mandates non-disclosure to the public of archaeological site locations, including those in Alaska, to prevent them from being looted. However, the OHA is the only legal entity to have these records, which is their designated job to collect and manage. Consequently, it is the only entity able to enhance and manipulate these legally protected archaeological site records in ways to provide specific products needed by BLM.

Further, the OHA’s unique role with all federal agencies in Alaska is due to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that BLM allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on all BLM undertakings that could impact significant archaeological sites. The OHA is a legally designated arm of ACHP with which BLM works to achieve compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. And part of that compliance is both OHA and BLM using and consulting on the records that OHA manages.

Section 112 subsection (a)(2) of the NHPA further requires that each federal agency that is responsible for the protection of significant archaeological resources and other properties that would be qualified for the National Register of Historic Places, has specific obligations for the care and maintenance of records about such resources, naming requiring that: “Records and other data, including data produced by historical research and archaeological surveys and excavation are [to be] permanently maintained in appropriate data bases and made available to potential users.” BLM, itself, is a prime user of this data and the OHA is the unique entity that manages and can make this data available to BLM.

Over past years, OHA has continually enhanced its collection and management of BLM records including scanning old archaeological reports, maps, and other useful information, and placing various relevant maps into GIS layers for BLM’s use for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Much of this enhancement work in the past was supported by BLM though an assistance agreement with money for this purpose provided by BLM’s National Office in Washington, DC. This occurred as part of the terms of the 1997 and then 2012 National Programmatic Agreements for Section 106 compliance negotiated by BLM with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This money was in essence money to help the OHA better help BLM for its Section 106 work.

Under a contract, BLM now wants to have OHA create specific projects that it needs for it work.

Due to the unique circumstances described above, BLM requests the following be acquired by contract with OHA using other than full and open competition. The products are in support of BLM needs for obtaining ever-better, enhanced site records and databases, along with GIS-based mapping products that only the OHA can provide.

Further, the contract is to have OHA also create further enhancements to its existing online records delivery system that would allow BLM to have even better online access to archaeological site records.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value):

The BLM would contract with the OHA for the following three products that would all be completed by the OHA’s own staff (which can include new employees they hire and supervise to do this work) in the OHA office in Anchorage. The completion date for the three products would be September 30, 2022.

The overall funding for the contract is $50,000.00.

Product #1: Provide access to OHA site records to qualified BLM employees and continued maintenance of existing BLM site records. Estimated cost: $8,500. This government estimate is based on prior experience with maintaining archaeological site data and GIS layers and would require approximately 200 hours of OHA staff time.

Product #2: Digitize and incorporate new site records into the OHA database as they are received from the BLM. This will include digitizing archaeological and cultural resource site records, including maps, photographs, GIS Data, and other records and inputting the data into a database. This will include approximately 1,600-2,000 archaeological site and project records. Estimated cost: $34,000. This government estimate is based on prior experience with archaeological records management and data entry into GIS layers, with one entry taking an estimated 30 minutes. Incorporation of 2,000 records would take approximately 1,000 hours by trained OHA staff.

Product #3: Provide the BLM with quarterly data cuts that include all digitized geospatial records for archaeological sites on BLM lands in Alaska. This would require the OHA to provide a GIS database to BLM staff via email on a quarterly basis. Estimated cost:

$5,000. This government estimate is based on prior experience with database management and will take approximately 10 hours of time each quarter for a technical programmer to submit the data cut to the BLM.

In addition to the three products listed above, OHA staff will also need to coordinate with BLM staff via email, phone, or in-person meetings to ensure the records management is accurate and meets the needs of both the OHA and the BLM. Estimated cost: $2,500.

This government estimate is based on prior experience in project coordination and records management and is estimated to include 40 hours by various OHA staff.

4. An identification of the Statutory Authority permitting other than full and open competition:

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.

5. A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

The conclusion that there is only one source that can provide the products needed by BLM lies in the unique legal relationship that BLM has with the OHA, which was discussed earlier. This is due to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), a federal law that links the two offices in a special legal relationship due to Section 106 of the NHPA. No other office, firm, or entity in the nation has this same special relationship, which has resulted in OHA having unique BLM records and databases and the sole power to manipulate and enhance them in ways needed by BLM. There are abundant on-line federal websites where one can find details about how the OHA has legal responsibilities given to it through the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, for allowing BLM to achieve mandated compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The single best one is by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that had direct information on, or links to, all types of federal preservation program aspects, from their role and legal responsibilities, to how offices like OHA function and are linked with federal agencies for compliance with Section 106, to the NHPA of 1966, to much more (see information at: https://www.achp.gov/)

6. A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 5.2, and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies:

A notice will be published.

https://www.achp.gov/

7. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable, and the basis for that determination:

See Contract File C25 Best Value Determination

8. A description of the market research conducted (FAR part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted:

BLM, in learning about the how federal compliance with the Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 can only be done, has concluded that it is legally impossible to have additional sources for the products needed.

9. Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition FAR 6.303-2(a) (9)):

N/A

10. A listing of sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition:

None.

11. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

If the federal government were to amend the NHPA and allow private companies to obtain archaeological site information that they could then market without restrictions for profit, then it is theoretically to possibly find another vendor. However, currently, unrestricted marketing and disclosure of archaeological site information is prohibited by federal law.

CERTIFICATIONS:

I, hereby, certify that this requirement does not exceed the Government’s minimum needs or scheduled requirements, and that the basis for award under other than full and open competition is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief:

/s/Robert King__________________________ ________7/28/2021________________ Requisitioner’s Signature Date I, hereby, certify that this justification for other than full and open competition is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief:

_/s/Nicole Maldonado________________ _________________9/1/2021_____________ Contracting Officer’s Signature Date