LSJ - CL IX Mod (7-10-26)_Redacted.pdf

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

CONTRACTING SERVICES OFFICE

6090 STRATHMORE ROAD

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23237

LSJ No. DCSO-R2-26-08

Limited Source Justification

(1) Identification of the agency and contracting activity:

Requiring Activity: DLA Weapons Support Contracting Activity: DLA Contracting Services Office – Richmond (DSCO-R2)

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

Approval to solicit on a limited source basis under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.401(b) and General Services Administration (GSA) ordering procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii) – The order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order already issued on a competitive basis.

It is the government’s intent to award a modification to include additional support to established Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task order SP4704-26-F-0001 // blanket purchase agreement (BPA) SP4704-24-A- 0005 that was issued competitively against established Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Strategic Transformation and Enterprise Project Support (STEPS) BPAs in accordance with FAR 8.4, which were awarded against BPA holders’ GSA Schedule Contracts. In the interest of economy and efficiency, the vendor, BCG Federal Corp, CAGE Code 6WAG5, is the only source capable of providing the services required within the timeframe needed. Pursuant to FAR 8.4, this acquisition is conducted under the authority of the FSS (see FAR 8.401 and GSA ordering procedures 538.71).

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

DLA has a requirement for contractor-provided services in support of an effort that aligns with the DLA Director's Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Annual Strategic Guidance, DLA Aviation and DLA Land & Maritime will play a critical role in the Agency's strategic transformation. To that end, the agency announced the integration of DLA Aviation and DLA Land & Maritime into a single Major Subordinate Command (MSC), called DLA Weapons Support, focused on Class IX repair parts and components. The original award of Task Order SP4704-26-F-0001 had eight objectives supporting the transformation effort that is underway. This request expands the request to include an additional task for in-depth advising and product development necessary to achieve desired outcomes within the required timeline including:

Task D: Support Transformation Execution, Governance, & Change Adoption.

The total awarded task order cost and modification cost for this effort are as follows:

Task Order Award:

Modification:

TOTAL:

(4) Authority and supporting rational and, if applicable, a demonstration of the proposed contractor's unique qualifications to provide the required supply or service:

The acquisition is conducted on a limited source basis pursuant to FAR 8.401(b) and GSA ordering procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii) – The order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order already issued on a competitive basis.

The original Class (CL) IX MSC task order included advising both the Aviation and Land & Maritime leadership teams, developing a Program of Achievable Milestones (POAM) and developing critical tools to guide the merger of the two MSCs. The first phase of this effort included assembling government and contracting teams, building relationships, routines of action, and developing the initial action plan.

Through those efforts, including the development of a Program of Achievable Milestones, the government and advisory team identified additional detailed planning and execution work that will be critical in achieving all objectives of the merger within the timeframes identified. The DLA Director’s guidance identifies a Fully Operationally Capable Date of 01 October 2026 for the full merger of the two Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) into one CL IX MSC. Given the timelines involved, the government assesses that maintaining the existing government and advising teams will be critical to building momentum and maintaining continuity of effort; establishing relationships with new advisory teams would be detrimental to the government’s ability to effectively merge the two MSCs within the timeframe identified. Bringing in a new advising team for additional tasks would require additional baselining of requirements and coordination of various teams’ efforts that would likely negatively impact the governments’ ability to meet our objectives.

Executing this support through a modification is necessary due to requiring continued support to DLA to execute ongoing objectives and is a logical continuation of existing scope. Bringing in a new contractor will likely cause major delays, non-value-added onboarding and upskilling, and rework of existing products. A rework of existing products would take place due to new reviews taking place by a new vendor to obtain their own data to lead to their own recommendations. The current task order was awarded on the STEPS BPA, using a competitive bidding process.

In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical continuation to the work already being performed by BCG. This level of effort could not be accomplished through any other vendor in such a relatively short period of time. BCG has spent the past nine months performing this work and gaining invaluable expertise and institutional knowledge through their performance. The government is uniquely poised to benefit from the economy of scale and lessons learned in having BCG continue this work. BCG possesses a deep knowledge of the current environment and infrastructures impacting the Class IX MSC design. BCG’s experience working with DLA, the DLA J codes, as well as the Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) all confer additional benefits insofar as this expertise offers greater efficiency and expediencies that another contractor could not offer the government at this time.

Furthermore, transferring this knowledge to another contractor at this juncture would not be efficient as it would result in a substantial duplication of costs and effort, would not be in the government’s best interests, and would misalign the ongoing design efforts restructuring DLA Aviation and DLA Land and Maritime.

Should this modification not be allowed and a separate vendor brought in, all the underlying data and knowledge obtained throughout the period of performance to build the Class IX MSC design would be transferable to the new vendor given time to review the data and understand the information.

Consequently, the government would be forced to pay the new vendor for duplicative work to analyze data already completed by the current vendor and paid for by the government. Moreover, the cost in time and productivity to key Agency personnel and lost time in a critical Agency program cannot be underestimated. The average total price of all quotes received for the base award was , which was more than the awardee’s total quoted price of . The awardee was the lowest priced quoter with the fewest labor hours quoted, which means a different vendor would most likely be higher priced with more labor hours than the current vendor.

The services are not separable and are intertwined and similar in nature with the amended PWS modification support not being materially different from the task order as awarded. Awarding the remaining aspects to a different vendor will create a high risk of contracting fratricide with separate vendors working overlapping aspects of the task order's PWS with no clear way to delineate lines of division. Separate task orders would ultimately slow down and degrade the effectiveness of the task order support. Therefore, logically separating the newly proposed support from the task order as awarded is not feasible nor is it in the government’s best interests as it is more resource effective and efficient to maintain support through one vendor.

(5) Determination by the ordering activity contracting officer that the order represents the best value:

The Contracting Officer determines the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable, that the quoted rates do not exceed the current GSA FSS rates, and that the resulting order represents the best value to the government by comparing quoted prices to historical prices paid for the same or similar supplies/services, comparison to the independent government cost estimate (IGCE), and/or another methodology.

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

In September and October of 2025, DLA evaluated multiple quotes from vendors under the DLA STEPS services Blanket Purchase Agreements. Based on those proposals and a best value evaluation, BCG Federal services were selected as the best value vendor. Due to the short timelines involved with completing the merger of two large organizations, competing the requirement amongst multiple vendors was determined to be detrimental to achieving desired objectives. The government strongly desires to expand the scope of work with the current advisory team who is already familiar with and intrinsically embedded in the effort with all government stakeholders.

(7) Other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

Execution of this LSJ and modification P00001 to the task order does not include a revision to the task order performance period end date. Bringing on a new vendor would take more time and extend the period of performance (PoP), which is not an option based on Weapons Support’s Full Operational Capability (FOC) date of October 2026.

(8) Statement of the 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:

Market research will be conducted for any additional follow-on requirements, if required, to determine if other sources exist and requirements may be competed. If another potential source emerges, DLA will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

Review:

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION

Per FAR 8.401(b) and GSA ordering procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii), I hereby certify this justification.

Requirements POC Signature

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Per FAR 8.401(b) and GSA ordering procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii), I hereby certify this justification.

Contracting Officer Signature

Approval:

ALTERNATE ADVOCATE FOR COMPETITION, DCSO-DC

Per FAR 8.401(b) and GSA ordering procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii), I hereby certify this justification.