Logical_Follow-On_Justification.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Contract Number: DTFH6113D00031 Task Order Number: 693JJ318F200026

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity.

Federal Highway Administration Headquarters, Office of Acquisition and Grants Management, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., E65-101, Washington, DC 20590.

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

This is a justification for an exception to fair opportunity, to issue a logical follow-on task order under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Financial Advisory Services Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity Contract with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. The original order was DTFH6113D00031/5001.

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

The task order is to provide financial advisory services (credit analysis, financial model review, negotiation assistance) and risk advisory services (review of borrower’s traffic and revenue forecast and sensitivity analysis) to the Government for the “Manor Expressway (290E) Phase III Project,” in connection with a prospective loan from the TIFIA Program.

The project is to build connecting lanes as part of a larger system of highways in Austin, Texas.

The estimated value of the task order is $168,335. The period of performance for the task order is to be through March 31, 2019.

4. Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale.

The exception to fair opportunity is that cited at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C): “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.”

Rationale:

a. It is in the interest of economy to issue a logical follow-on:

The 290E Project involves building connecting lanes between two major highways in Austin.

Loans to the project sponsor are repaid from tolls generated by its ‘system’ of toll roads (the System). The Louis Berger team (LB team) reviewed the System, the project sponsor’s credit profile and its financial model in detail under the original order. Since the System’s characteristics and the project sponsor’s credit profile remain unchanged, it will only need to update its analysis to account for the new loan. In contrast, another contractor would require significant resources to understand the System, the project sponsor’s legal structure, the project sponsor’s financial position and the financial model. Further, since much of the more ‘high level’ analysis required under the task order has been completed under the initial order (e.g. negotiating commercial terms, understanding the lien structure), the LB team will be able to delegate a relatively larger share of work to junior resources compared to what could be expected from another contractor without the familiarity with the System; this is expected to result in a lower total price to complete the effort.

b. It is in the interest of efficiency to issue a logical follow-on:

Certain work tasks from the SOW are expected to be greatly simplified and streamlined, if a logical follow-on is issued. These include:

Reviewing the documentation package.

Conducting a detailed assessment of creditworthiness of the proposed lien and form of pledge for repayment of the proposed loan

Examining counterparty risk

Reviewing the financial model to assess its functionality and accuracy of calculations.

Reviewing recent/current economic downturn (national, regional, study area) and the impact on historic traffic trends, identifying key drivers of traffic and revenue decline (if any) and the potential impact on the forecasts.

Reviewing the legal documents for traffic and revenue related issues, including but not limited to, changes in toll policy, limits on tolling rates, etc.

c. The new task order is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract:

The LB Team spent several months in 2015 analyzing the project sponsor’s System and financial position for the previous loan. The project sponsor’s credit profile is expected to remain largely unchanged after the 290E Project loan and so the TIFIA loan’s structure for this Project will be nearly identical to the previous loan.

This procurement will, therefore, allow the LB team to apply the knowledge that it gained during its review of the previous loan to its analysis of the current loan. No new material issues are expected to arise during the credit analysis and negotiations for this loan.

d. All awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

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

The anticipated cost to the Government for this task order $168,335 is considered fair and reasonable. A firm-fixed-price task order is anticipated. The Contractor provided supporting information including a table of loaded labor rates and an hour estimate to support the proposed firm-fixed-price. The Contracting Officer and Task Order Contracting Officer’s Representative (TOCOR) reviewed the price proposal and compared the hours estimated to Government expectations (i.e. in the Independent Government Cost Estimate) as well as with pricing information from the original order, and more recent historical pricing data for similar work performed by the same and other contractors, at its disposal.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification.

There are no other relevant facts supporting the justification, not otherwise included above.

7. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made.

No specific barriers to competition are known in this case. The agency intends to continue competing orders under this contract vehicle, with exceptions to fair opportunity made only when fully justified, as above.

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

Certification: ____________________________________________________________

Samantha Reizes, Contracting Officer Date

9. Evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying 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.

Certification: ____________________________________________________________

Dimitri Kombolias, Task Order Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

DETERMINATION

Based on the foregoing information, I hereby determine that the circumstances in FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) applies to the subject logical follow-on task order.

Samantha Reizes Date Contracting Officer Office of Acquisition and Grants Management Federal Highway Administration

APPROVAL

Pursuant to FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C), the ordering activity contracting officer’s certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the ordering activity contracting officer’s knowledge and belief will serve as approval. No higher approval level is established in accordance with agency procedures. Therefore, see section (8) of this justification, above.