Limited Source Justification signed v2_Redacted.pdf

Limited Source Justification

(use with Federal Supply Schedules ordering)

1) Identification of the Agency, Contracting Activity, and Document being approved:

Procurement Office: Acquisition Management Division

Agency: General Services Administration – PBS

Solicitation Number: 47PH0923R0046

Description of Requirement/Specified Brand Name(s): Construction Manager as Agent (CMa) Services, VA Austin Information Technology Center (AITC), Austin, TX

Estimated Dollar Value:

2) Nature and/or description of action being approved:

FAR 8.405-6 Limited sources justification and approval.

(a) Orders placed under Federal Supply Schedules are exempt from the requirements in Part 6.

However, an ordering activity must justify its action when restricting consideration—

SOLE SOURCE

(1) Of schedule contractors to fewer than required in 8.405-1 or 8.405-2;

Circumstances that may justify restriction cited in paragraph (a)(1) of this subsection include— FAR

8.405-6(a)

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

_____ (2) Only one source is capable of responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work. FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B)

__X__ (3) 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 must not have been previously issued under sole source or limited source procedures. FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C)

3) Description of Supplies or Services Required:

The US Veterans Administration’s (VA) Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) is the VA’s main data center providing critical computer system hosting services in a 24/7 uptime environment. The VA’s

OIT strategic goal is to remain in the 275,000 square foot AITC facility for the long-term and to modernize it to meet Uptime Institute Tier 3 standards. Tier 3 data centers allow O&M and construction work to be done on building systems without disrupting the hosted IT systems.

GSA has been the primary government agency delivering AITC modernization projects through a program of Reimbursable Work Agreement (RWA) projects since a 2017 master plan was adopted. Since

2017, GSA has delivered 50 RWA projects and currently has 20 RWA projects in progress. VA plans to request 20 additional new RWA projects between 2023 and 2027. Because of the existing workload of active projects and planned new projects there is a continuing need for CMa services at the AITC. GSA

Region 7 does not have enough project management workload capacity in the Austin area to fulfill the

AITC projects construction management and inspection scope.

OCMI, Inc. was awarded a base plus three one year option periods contract in 2019 to provide CMa services on AITC RWA projects. The contract was competed among Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract holders providing CMa services. Option Year 3 of the OCMI contract expired on 2/13/23 but was extended by a 6-month contract modification to allow time for a follow-on contract to be procured.

The 6-month contract modification expires on 8/14/23.

4) Identification of justification rationale and, if applicable, a demonstration of the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications to provide the required supply or service:

a) VA and GSA management have determined that a continuing need exists for CMa services at

AITC from 2023 through 2027. The need/requirement is for CMa services consisting of a 1 year base award period and three (3) 1 year option periods.

b) The VA customer agency has provided funding to GSA for the follow-on contract base period and has programmed funding for future option years.

c) OCMI, Inc. personnel have been working full time on-site at the AITC since 2019 and have developed detailed knowledge of the AITC facility, project requirements and VA and GSA team roles and responsibilities.

d) OCMI has received either Satisfactory or Very Good ratings on all CPARS performance evaluation reports since contract award.

e) The tentative follow-on contract will use pre-negotiated labor rates on OCMI’s Multiple Award

Schedule contract. There is minimal to no cost benefit to the government to competitively compete a follow-on CMa contract.

f) OCMI is a SDVOSB business. A follow-on contract award to OCMI supports the VA’s Veteran goals.

5) Demonstration that the order represents the best value consistent with 8.404(d):

Competition was initially received on the original procurement and OCMI was determined the best value. This logical follow-on will follow 8.404 (d) Pricing as the CS will review OCMI’s proposal to ensure that the Services offered on the schedule are priced at the correct hourly rates. GSA has already determined the rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, ordering activities are not required to make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, except for a price evaluation as required by 8.405-2(d). By placing an order against a schedule contract using the procedures in 8.405, the ordering activity has concluded that the order represents the best value (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.

6) Description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted:

Market research was conducted and although there are 184 SDVOSB Contractors under SIN 541330ENG

– Engineering Services, it is reasonable and logical that none of these contractors will be able to perform the requirements stated in the SOW as the existing contractor has clearly proven capable of doing, and below are some possible risks of awarding a new contract to a new contractor.

1. Potential delays due to lack of knowledge of existing projects, existing protocols, not to mention security clearance to access the building.

2. There is also extensive cost associated with bringing a new contractor up to speed (this could take weeks).

3. There are also the additional man hours required to train a new contractor, meet the various project managers and learn the status of each project.

Due to the aforementioned risks, there are costs associated with a new contractor and the potential for project delays that the VA wants to avoid.

7) Any of other facts supporting the justification:

No additional information other than what is stated in sections 4 - 6.

8) A statement of actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made:

No barriers were removed as this project is for the VA, and their agency gives preference to SDVOSB.

OCMI is listed as SDVOSB, the logical follow-on award makes the most sense and is in the interest of economy and efficiency. There have also been no performance issues with OCMI over the last four years of performance on this project.

9) The Contracting Officer and the responsible technical or requirements representative certifies by signature below that the information contained in this justification is accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

Barbara Giddens, Contracting Officer Date

Tom Kollaja, Technical/Requirements Representative Date

10) Evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirement personnel and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.

No additional supporting information is available, other than the contract file from the initial award.

Limited Source Justification

Logical Follow-on for CMa Services for the VA AITC, Austin, Texas

Solicitation Number: 47PH0923R0046

Prepared by:

Joshua Walker, Contract Specialist (7PQC) Date

Reviewed by:

Dianna Henderson, Branch Chief (7PQC) Date

Angelina Calloway, Regional Counsel Date

Carolyn Smith, Acquisition Director (7PQ) Date

Approved by:

Charlie Hart, Competition Advocate Date