Limited Source Justification (LSJ) - MIST Bridge FINAL.pdf

Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop B3-30-03 Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850

FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION

Acquisition Title: Bridge Contract for Medicare Integrated System Testing (MIST) Agency: Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (DHHS/CMS) Acquisition Year: 2021 Author: , COR

1. Description of Action:

Nature

• _X__ New Requirement

• ____ Follow-On Order

• ____ Modification of Existing Purchase Order / Contract Number:

Contract Type

• _X__ Firm-Fixed Price

• ____ Time and Materials

• ____ Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)

• ____ Term

• ____ Completion

• ____ Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF)

• ____ Other: ___________

Projected Cost / Price: $ Funding Source(s): This acquisition will be funded using FY2021 appropriated funds.

Name of Proposed Contractor(s): Sparksoft Corporation Street Address: 5520 Research Park Drive, Suite 210 City, State, Zip: Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

2. Description of Supplies or Services:

The estimated value of the proposed action, including all options, is $ .

CMS has an immediate need for a short-term bridge contract for four months, with options to extend for no more than one year, to provide severable services for integrated testing of the Information Technology (IT) eco-system which enables the payment of Medicare claims. This need exists because efforts to procure such services have become mired in post-award protests. The period of performance for this bridge contract would be in place during the pendency of the second protest decision, and any subsequent protests that may result from this subsequent award.

On August 20, 2020, CMS awarded the Medicare Integrated System Testing (MIST) task order under GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Contract GS-35F-161CA to Sparksoft Corporation to provide integrated testing services of CMS Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) systems. Due to a timely post-award protest to the Government

Accountability Office (GAO), the Contracting Officer was required to immediately suspend performance on the task order on September 14, 2020. Corrective action was undertaken in response to the protest and an ensuing award decision was again made to Sparksoft Corporation on December 18, 2020. Subsequently, another timely post-award protest to the GAO was made in response to the second award decision. The agency elected to take corrective action while maintaining the prior stay of performance.

To provide immediate support for the agency’s integrated testing needs and prevent further delays that will significantly harm the government, the agency is seeking to meet this urgent need by establishing a MIST bridge contract with Sparksoft Corporation. Under the MIST bridge contract, CMS will acquire services supporting comprehensive integration testing, inclusive of but not limited to embedded test automation constructs at the code development stage, functional, validation, regression, system and performance testing for production readiness, all the while maximizing use of automation for all testing phases.

Traditionally, in order to help manage the complexity of Medicare FFS and ensure the stability of the system, CMS has previously followed a rigorous change management process called E-CHIMP which includes independent testing by a third party other than the shared system maintainer (i.e. Standard Test Contractor (STC)). This traditional approach has limitations in terms of agility and systemic coverage, which CMS needs to overcome in order to address inevitable policy changes, business processes and technological obsolescence that inhibit system agility, flexibility and stability while driving up cost.

Because CMS’ needs have evolved beyond its traditional independent testing approach under the STC, the new MIST services are mission critical to ensure testing of the FFS ecosystem “shifts left” to become faster and increasingly integrated. The new MIST task order will incorporate modern tools and methods with greater insight from Medicare claims processing business experience and operate within both the traditional CMS Systems Development Life-Cycle (SDLC) and the Agile framework of the Medicare Payment System Modernization (MPSM) project.

The MIST bridge contract is intended to be a short-term effort to bridge the gap between the expiration of existing essential contracts supporting FSS systems testing—specifically, STC and the MPSM Modular Integration Testing (MIT) contract—and resolution of protests related to the MIST task order award. Performance under the legacy STC and MPSM MIT contracts will end on March 31, 2021, with no options available for further extensions.

The MIST bridge contract will include a four-month base period commencing on April 1, 2021,along with multiple shorter option periods up to a total performance period of one year. CMS will exercise the option(s) only if performance under the MIST task order continues to be delayed due to future protest(s) and resultant corrective action.

3. Authority:

____: ORDER AGAINST FSS: Authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program, Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251, et seq.); Title 40 U.S.C. 501, Services for Executive Agencies;and Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (PL 107-107) and implemented by FAR 8.405-6. Mark the applicable exception and for each discuss how the cited authority applies in accordance with FAR 8.405-6(c)(2)(iv).

_X__: An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the procedures would result in unacceptable delays (FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A));

Medicare claims processing is a core business process of CMS. Any interruption in the validation aspects of these processes would severely impact the viability of these systems, contributing to inadequate performance, costly delays and significant reputational harm to this governmental agency.

____: Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level or quality required becausethe supplies or services are unique or highly specialized (FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(B));or

___: In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited sources procedures (FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C));or

____: An item peculiar to one manufacturer can be a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer). A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer. (FAR 8.405-6(b);

4. Market Research:

As noted above, the agency seeks to bridge the gap between testing currently performed under STC and MPSM MIT and integrated testing to be performed under the protested MIST task order. Data Computer Corporation of America (DCCA) currently serves as the STC contractor under Contract GS-06F-0615Z/Task Order HHSM-500- 2015-00472G, providing the ongoing test sites and technical support services to test functionality of critical CMS applications. Skyward IT Solutions, LLC serves as the MIT contractor under Contract 75FCMC19C0016. The MIT contract supports integration testing of the Application Development Organizations (ADO’s) responsible for developing micro services to replace the agency’s legacy shared systems. This requirement emphasizes modular innovative approaches and techniques and integrates the testing of all ADO services quality and performance, as well as the STC testing.

CMS awarded the MIST task order, which includes aspects of both STC and MPSM MIT, to Sparksoft Corporation following competition under GSA FSS. Given the results of the evaluation and subsequent best value determinations for MIST described above, while there may be more than one source capable of delivering the needed services, only a few were willing and interested to provide a quotation to CMS in response to the MIST solicitation. Of those, the source most likely to offer the best value was determined to be Sparksoft Corporation.

When performing market research for this bridge contract, the contracting officer considered and determined that Sparksoft Corporation is best suited to ensure that programmatic requirements for immediate, integrated testing support are met during the protest period. The contracting officer reviewed Sparksoft Corporation’s and determined them to be capable, responsible, and likely to be successful in performing the task order contemplated by this document.

5. Actions to Increase Competition:

CMS is currently in the process of performing corrective action related to the award of a GSA FSS order for the needed services using the fair opportunity ordering procedures set forth in FAR 8.405-2.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification:

Award of this short-term MIST bridge contract is appropriate during pendency of the protest and does not constitute a de facto override of the automatic stay of performance required for the prior MIST task order award. See the Matter of Access Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 84 Fed. Cl. 241 (2008); SVD Stars II, LLC v. U.S., 138 Fed. Cl. 483 (2018).

In Access Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held that there was no functional equivalent of an override where the bridge contract did not disturb the status quo with respect to the original contract under protest before GAO, specifically where the bridge contract was a “separate, self-contained contract” and a new contract “with a distinct character and function” than the original contract awarded. Id. Characteristics that demonstrated the bridge contracts were separate and self-contained were the fact that the services under the bridge contract would only be provided during the pendency of the protest or a short period afterwards, the appropriation used to fund the bridge contract was separate from that used to fund the original contract and the appropriated funds for the original contract remained untouched, and the bridge contract’s term was independent of the term of the original contract (the bridge contract will not lessen the amount of work on the original contract). Id.

All of those factors are present here. COFC also held that the fact alone that the bridge contract and the original contract were for the provision of the same services “is insufficient to prove that the bridge contract is an iteration, in whole or in part, of the original contract and, thus, an override. Contracts may share the same subject matter and yet remain separate and distinct from one another.” Id.

Approvals:

1. Program Office Certification: This is to certify that portions of this justification have been developed by the undersigned program office personnel, including supporting information and/or data verifying the Government’s minimum needs, schedule requirements and other rationale, which form the basis for this Limited Source Justification.

Contracting Officer Representative (COR) / Date

Program/Project Manager (P/PM) / Date

Best Value Determination. By my signature below, after review of the relevant documents, I have determined that the order subject to this Limited-Sources Justification represents the best value for the Government as set forth in FAR 8.404(d),and constitutes a fair and reasonable price. The basis for my determination is as follows:

The CO will perform analysis of the proposed prices including likely comparison of previous prices paid in order to make this determination.

2. Contracting Officer Certification: This is to certify that the justification for the proposed acquisition has been reviewed and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information and/or data provided to support the rationale and recommendation for approval, is accurate and complete.

Contracting Officer / Date

I hereby confirm the circumstances described above apply and approve the Limited Source Justification.

OAGM Division Director / Date

OAGM Group Director / Date

3. Head of Contracting Authority (HCA) Approval

I hereby confirm the circumstances described above apply and approve the Limited Source Justification.

/ Date

4. CMS Competition Advocate (CA) Approval I hereby confirm the circumstances described above apply and approve the Limited Source Justification.

____N/A__________________ Name / Date

5. Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of (state supplies/services being procured) on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of (state the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1), subject to the availability of funds, andprovided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

____N/A________________ Name / Date