_Limited Sources JA Security System Refresh-_Redacted.pdf

Limited Sources Justification and Approval (J&A)

Contracting Activity: AMIC DET 2 OUPKA (Patrick AFBFL)

Purchase Request / Local ID Number:

Program / Project (and PE, if appl icable): Security System Refresh

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): Other Cont racting

Authority: Mult iple Award Schedule Program (FAR 8.405-6)

Estimated Contract Cost (including options):

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan?

Description of Limitation:

□ Yes 1ZJ No

There exists a limitation of contractors who are able to meet all three aspects of this unique requirement (1) provide a variety of brand name specific items, (2) provide installation by Lenel Value Added Reseller (VAR) certified technicians, and (3) provide Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance requirement for all technician(s) who enter the facility.

COORDINATION (AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

APPROVAL <AFFARS 5306.304(al l

March 2018 Page 1 of 7

( See guidance at the end of this document for completing the following sections.)

I . Contracting Activity.

The contracting agency and organizational activity responsible for the proposed contracting action are identified below:

a. Contracting Agency: U.S. Air Force

b. Procuring Activity: AMIC Det-2 OUPKA (Patrick AFB. FL) 1020 South Patrick Drive Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 3292~3002

c. Requiring Activity: AFT AC/SOS 1020 South Patrick Drive

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 3292~3002

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed.

This is a Limited Sources Justification and Approval for the purchase of a security system upgrade. The con~ intends to solicit from a single source, M.C. Dean Inc, and award a task order against GSA contract number ---

This requirement was initially estimated at less than- nd a limited sources J&A was approved by the contracting officer.

Site visits with the supplier/installer, M.C. Dean Inc., resulted in the identification of a significant government underestimation of equipment, labor, installation, and travel requirements. This is a revised J&A seeking approval from the AFICC/KC competition advocate. Original J&A and market research report are attached

Ill. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

The Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFT AC) requires a security system upgrade at AFT AC facilities located at Patrick AFB, FL and Millington, TN. The contractor is required to provide all materials, equipment, personnel and tools to provide a fully integrated security system upgrade that includes complete software/hardware replacement/upgrade to include domain controllers, monitors, cameras, door contacts, master control units, intercom systems, etc., in accordance with a government provided statement of objectives.

Installation and testing shall be performed by U.S. companies using U.S. citizens. Contractors shall be cleared for the areas they are working, up to the TS/SCI level. Contractor must utilize E-Verify to verify citizenship and provide proof of citizenship to Government prior to commencing work on the contract.

The contractor must be an authorized LENEL Value Added Reseller (VAR) and on-site technicians must be certified by the manufacturer to work on the equipment and software provided.

IV. Identification of the justification/rationale for limiting sources and demonstration of the contractor's unique qualifications to provide the required supply/service.

Per FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B), Only one source is capable of responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work. This project is to upgrade an existing and operating system to the latest software version, as well as update existing hardware with direct replacements that are compatible with the Lenel system. This time sensitive project was created due to the end of support for the version of software currently in use and end of life for multiple components. Alternative system solutions or substitutions would require vast equipment replacement, engineering, programming, testing and labor. There are over 200 portals controlled by

33 panels with dozens of sub components which would require modification. Modification would include device replacement and new firmware at both the AFTAC HQ and Millington, TN performance locations. Additional labor would include not only the escort requirement of a design/install team but the periodic posting of military personnel during periods where the system was

March 2018 Page 2 of 7 nonfunctional and alarm/access was not operational. Government physical security support would require continuous 24/7 operations until impacted systems were restored. The Government estimates that a transition to an alternative security system would cost approximately -in addition to the llllproposed for this upgrade. Additionally, the time required to replace the existing security system is estimated to be 12 months, versus upgrading, which is estimated to take 4 months. System replacement versus system upgrade introduces unacceptable disruption and risk to AFTAC's physical security posture.

Substitutions or reconfiguration of a complete security system for AFT AC is not in the best interest of the Government, due to the immense delay, disruption, and cost. For these reasons upgrading the current Lenel security system with Lenel VAR(s) and technicians holding TS/SCI clearance(s) is in the best interest of the Government. The Project Manager (PM) affirms this is the only solution that meets the Government's needs at this time, based on their professional knowledge of the market, security solutions, history with this requirement, and current need.

V. Determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d).

Per FAR 8.405-2 and FAR 8.404(d), Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at a fixed price for performance of a specific task (e.g., installation, maintenance, and repair) .

GSA has already determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and 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. Although GSA has already negotiated fair and reasonable pricing, ordering activities may seek additional discounts before placing an order. The Government will evaluate the contractors proposed level of effort and mix of labor categories. Additionally, material and other direct costs, such as travel, will be evaluated for accuracy and to determine whether the proposed technical approach is acceptable. Price analysis will be conducted by comparing quoted prices to other published price lists (GSA) and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The contracting officer will seek price reductions to arrive at a fair and reasonable cost that results in the best value consistent with FAR 404(d).

VI. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted.

Market research (MR) was conducted in March 2019. The MR identified only four capable vendors. In an effort to increase competition, the contract specialist issued a Request for Information (RFI) with a 14 day response time and included 131 NASA SEWP vendors and 399 GSA eBuy vendors, thus totaling over 530 vendors. The RFI resulted in 2 responses from NASA SEWP vendors and 4 responses from GSA vendors. Both of the NASA SEWP vendors who responded to the RFI were small business vendors in the selected NAICS code 541519. NAICS code 541519 is specific to the installation of Information Technology by Value Added Resellers (ITVARs). The GSA respondents were 1 Large Business and 3 small Businesses. Of the 3 small businesses, only 1 was registered as a small business in the selected NAICS code 541519. Instead, all 3 GSA small business respondents were registered in NAICS code 334290, which is a manufacturing NAICS code. The non-manufacturing rule states, if a purchase is larger than Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) then the end product must also be from a small business.

Therefore, since this purchase is ■■••■■■and is described as Security IT hardware and software that must be installed by an ITVAR (as defined in NAICS code 541519), this market research indicated NASA SEWP small business vendors should be solicited for this purchase. Based on the information provided above, there was a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible vendors, competing independently, would submit priced offers in response to the solicitation expressed requirement.

A Request for Quote (RFQ) on NASA SEWP. The RFQ was set aside for small businesses, because during market research two small businesses responded and capability statements were reviewed and determined to be capable. However, during the Question and Answer portion of the RFQ process the two capable small business contractors asked questions that changed their ability to fully meet the requirements.

Question 1: Are the technicians required to hold TS/SCI clearances.

Answer 1: Yes, on-site technicians must hold TS/SCI security clearances to enable unrestricted access to the performance locations.

Question 2: Is the Government able to provide escorts for technicians that do not hold a TS/SCI clearance.

March 2018 Page 3 of 7

Answer 2: No, the Government is unable to provided security escorts for this installation of subject security system upgrade.

Updated Research:

Due to the no bid responses received from both NASA SEWP small businesses identified as capable during the market research phase of this acquisition, the Government reassessed the information collected during initial market research. This was done to determine if the GSA tool could be used and if the interested GSA contractors could possibly meet the Government's full requirement. The contract specialist reached out to three GSA contractors who had initially responded to the RFI. (The fourth GSA contractor was not contacted because their GSA contract category was only associated with a manufacturing NAICS.) The Government clarified if any of the three contractors could meet the TS/SCI requirements of the Government. Only one of the three GSA contractors, M.C. Dean Inc, indicated they can meet the full requirement. One contractor could not provide required cameras and did not wish to discuss further capabilities. One contractor could not meet the Lenel VAR requirement nor the TS/ SCI clearance requirement.

Due to the complex nature of the required security system it is not feasible to solicit the AbilityOne program.

VII. Other facts supporting the justification.

None

VIII. Actions 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.

The Government will continue to research physical security systems within the commercial market place. Research will focus on new and emerging technology as well as an analysis of alternatives for future upgrades.

IX. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I have determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

X. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by my (our) signature(s) above, I (we) certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my (our) responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

March 2018 Page 4 of 7