Justification_for_Fair_Opportunity_FINALFitz.pdf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Acquisition Management Division Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Upon the basis of the following justification, I, as the Activity Advocate for Competition, hereby approve this exception to the fair opportunity process required by FAR 16.505(b)(2(i))(B) as implemented by FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C).

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity.

This is a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity to be executed by the NRC, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation (NRR) and Acquisition Management Division (AMD) at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD.

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

a. Acquisition purpose and objectives.

The purpose of this modification is to increase the total ceiling for this cost reimbursement task order in the amount of $305,852 and extend the period of performance end date from 12/31/2018 to 07/31/2019.

3. Description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs

(including the estimated value).

a. Project title.

The objective of this contract is to provide technical expertise to assist the staff in the review of Topical Report WCAP-17788-P “Comprehensive Analysis and Test Program for [Generic Safety Issue] GSI-191 Closure (PA-SEE-1090)”.

Project description.

To obtain technical support in determining the acceptability of the thermal hydraulic methods and modeling techniques described in topical report WCAP-17788-NP that justify increases in the debris limits while maintaining adequate long-term core cooling.

Total estimated dollar value and performance/delivery period.

Increasing the total Task Order Ceiling in the amount of $305,851.66, increases the total task order ceiling from $449,307 to $755,158.66.

Period of performance: September 1, 2015 – July 31, 2019

4. Exception to the Fair Opportunity Process and Supporting Rationale If the contracting officer uses the logical follow-on exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value):

In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2(i))(C) – The additional level of effort is a follow on of the original order, and the order was placed in accordance with the fair opportunity process: The work being performed under this task order was initially competed among all of the Enterprise-Wide Contract holders, and Numark was the contractor who was found to be of best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Because this additional effort is still within scope of the original effort, there is no reason to believe that Numark would not still be the best value to the Government. In addition to this, as mentioned above, The Government’s need for continuity has been taken into consideration, as well as the potential costs of disrupting operations, and it would not be in the best interest of the Government to re-compete this effort.

The review of topical report WCAP-17788 is a complex review that has been ongoing since August 2015. To date, extensive effort has been performed by NUMARK on the review. This work includes supporting two audits, participating in numerous teleconferences, issuing of requests for additional information (RAIs) for Volumes 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the submittal, and evaluation of RAI responses for Volumes 1 and 6. The RAI responses for both Volumes 3 and 4 are technically complex and require expertise in thermal-hydraulic analysis in order to review. It would take a great deal of effort for new contractor to come up to speed on the technical issues and current status of NRC staff concerns. NUMARK was selected for this contract under a fair competitive process because they possess a specific skill set and expertise needed for the review, which was lacking in other bidders, so it is unlikely this additional work could be awarded to another contractor. In addition to this, Numark is familiar with this review and the work completed up to this point. The Government’s need for continuity has been taken into consideration, as well as the potential costs of disrupting operations, and it would not be in the best interest of the Government to re-compete this effort.

5. Determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

A cost analysis has been completed to determine fair and reasonableness and documented in the Summary of Negotiations. The contract specialist used historical data from the similar task orders contracts with Numark Associates, Inc. and also reviewed current audit information from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) in order to determine reasonableness of salaries and benefits costs as well as the indirect cost rate.

The contracting officer determines that the anticipated price(s) will be fair and reasonable based on the analysis performed by the contract specialist where an extensive cost evaluation of Numark as part of its initial proposal for the EWC for Technical Assistance IDIQ. In that review which was conducted in 2014, the CS analyzed Numark’s hourly rates, indirect and overhead rates, its proposed subcontract hourly rates, and its proposed fee structures, spanning the entire anticipated five-year period of performance of the IDIQ contract, from 2014 to 2019, and found them to be fair and reasonable. This task order modification will utilize the labor rates that have already been analyzed and determined to be fair and reasonable, and on this basis the Contracting Officer believes that the anticipated cost of this task order requirement will also be fair and reasonable.

6. Other facts supporting the justification for the exception to the fair opportunity process.

N/A

7. Statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the required supplies or services.

There are no expected modifications to further increase the ceiling of this task order.

Should similar modification requirements arise the NRC intends to compete those task order requirements.

8. Technical or requirements personnel certification:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The signature below represents the Contracting Officer Representative’s (COR) certification that the Government’s minimum needs or requirements or other rationale for an exception to fair opportunity) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.

Leslie Perkins, Project Manager Date

9. The contracting officer’s certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

The signature below represents contracting officer’s (CO) certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

Monique B. Williams, Contracting Officer Date Operations Branch B Acquisition Management Division

CONCURRENCE:

10. A written determination by the approving official that one of the circumstances in 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A) through (E) of this section applies to the order.

Competition Advocate Approval signature below constitutes a determination by the approving official that FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) applies to this modification.

Eleni Jernell, Competition Advocate Date