LSJ-_Redacted.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

Control Number: 26-J-006

GSAR 538.7104-3 Sole source justifications

1. Requiring Activity: USAG Stuttgart Department of Public Works (DPW)

2. Contracting Activity: 409th CSB, Regional Contracting Office (RCO) Stuttgart

3. 3. Description of Action: Request approval to award a sole source Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) allowing for the issuance of orders for Base Operations (BASOPS) services to include project-oriented work such as repairs, modifications, replacements, or installations for U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Stuttgart.

Estimated Ceiling Value: $38M Type of Funds: Operation and Maintenance Type of Contract: Blanket Purchase Agreement Expected Period of Performance: 18-month ordering period (12-month base plus

6-month option period)

Potential Contractor:

Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC.

CAGE: 4YXS0

13530 Dulles Technology Dr. Suite 500 Herndon, VA 20171-4642

4. Description of Supplies/Services: This sole source action will provide BASOPS services to include management, supervision, personnel, labor and equipment to operate, maintain, and repair real property facilities including buildings, structures, roads and grounds in accordance with Army ISR standards and guidelines, which are referred to as “overarching support.” Additionally, project-oriented work such as repairs, modifications, replacements, or installations for U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Stuttgart are included.

The Maintenance Support Services and Project Work Orders (PWOs) services are necessary to support USAG Stuttgart facilities to comply with AR-420-1 Facility Maintenance. USAG Stuttgart Department of Public Works support facility maintenance requirements for 28,000 service members and mission needs of 2 major combatant commands and other mission partners which are vital to global operations.

The estimated value per the IGE is provided below. The estimated BPA value of $38M is requested due to uncertainty of Demand Maintenance Order (DMO) and Project Work Order (PWO) workload. The IGE firm fixed price segment (management and re-occurring services) was developed utilizing GSA schedule labor rates with historical full time equivalent labor. The Time and Material segment (DMOs and PMOs Preventative Maintenance Orders) and Project Work Orders estimates were developed based on historical average for those orders over the last four years. DMOs and PWOs can vary significantly in nature, scope, expertise, and location. DMOs are time and material while replacements, and installations that exceed the thresholds for Demand Maintenance Orders (DMOs).

It is expected that overarching support services will be ordered in mid-December 2026 at the end of the current order. This will allow the continuation of these services until the Base Operations recompete is executed in summer 2027.

5. Authority Cited: Title 41 United States Code (U.S.C.) §4106(c)(3) as implemented pursuant to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO), Department of War (DoW) Class Deviation 2026-O0049, and Government Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) / GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Ordering Procedures (Deviation) 538.7104- 3(b)(1): 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 FSS order already issued on a competitive basis.

6. Reason for Authority Cited: The purpose of this contract is to provide for the continuation of services of USAG-Stuttgart (USAG-S) Base operation services. The previous BPA provides management, supervision, personnel, labor and equipment to operate, maintain, and repair real property facilities including buildings, structures, roads and grounds in accordance with Army AR 4201-1, DA PAM 420-06 and host nation standards and guidelines at USAG Stuttgart.

This follow-on BPA and the orders that will be issued under it are a logical follow-on to the prior Base Operations BPA (W91WFU21A001) and the orders issued under that it.

As noted above, the prior BPA and its orders were established on a competitive basis, and issuance of this follow-on BPA and its orders on a sole source basis is justified as a logical follow-on to previously competed work to preserve economy and efficiency in base operations until the follow-on contract can be awarded. The incumbent contractor possesses established technical knowledge, operational familiarity, and integrated process developed during performance of the original effort.

Award to another vendor would result in duplication of costs including time spent by Government in reviewing and coordinating multiple contractor submissions for project work orders and comparing multiple bids against Government cost estimates. This duplication effort also greatly limits the ability to accomplish PWOs in a timely manner.

Government personnel could spend several additional hours on each contractor submittal on each PWO. These Government resource savings are detailed below.

Award to the current provider ensures continuity of services and represents the most economical and efficient approach to meeting the Government’s requirements while maintaining mission effectiveness.

It is necessary to provide services with the incumbent in the interest of economy and efficiency for the reasons demonstrated below.

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

DMO Conversions In certain instances, Demand Maintenance Orders can be converted into Project Work Orders if they exceed the threshold. The table below summarizes the annual number of DMOs that were converted to PWOs broken out by year, non-reimbursable and reimbursable, housing, and OMA:

The above converted DMOs could be executed under a separate Engineering contract outside of the BASOPS BPA or by additional task orders as Project Work Orders.

The table below summarizes the number of Projects Work Orders that were executed over the past few years. Some of the below came from converted DMOs and some were from direct 4283 requests1.

CY and Type AFH OMA Total 2023 33 52 85

Non-Reimb 33 40 73 Reimb 12 12

2024 11 33 44 Non-Reimb 11 21 32 Reimb 12 12

2025 7 42 49 Non-Reimb 7 23 30 Reimb 19 19

Utilizing the same vendor that conducted the initial work scope investigation on DMOs will provide economic and efficient benefits to the Government in the following ways:

1 4283s are the DPW documents processed that is completed for project work orders.

i. Eliminate any loss of critical information or technical details that would have to be transferred to another contractor. This continuity in the work minimizes any re-work or work-scope re-investigation.

ii. Using the same vendor also saves time and funds on base access, project stand-up and tear down efforts. This logical follow-on will avoid duplication of previous hours expended for site visits by DPW and contractor personnel. Such expended resources are related to initial DMO response (normally 6-10 hours for each DMO). Taking the hourly average for the incumbent labor rates, converted DMOs to PWOs, and estimated hours, the estimate cost savings is $36,000 per year Additionally, the vendor who responded to the original work order will have historical knowledge of the systems and any system-to-system interactions that would greatly reduce or eliminate Requests for Information.

iii. Using the existing contractor on PWOs converted from DMOs eliminates the need for an extended period to execute the PWO. Part of the conversion process is for the maintenance contractor to provide a Return of Findings (reason why the work cannot be accomplished as a DMO) and a quotation for the project work. If a new contractor is used on PWOs converted from DMOs, this will require the DMO contractor to return to the site to a semi-finished state. This is defined as cleaning up the work site and performing some worksite repairs to original site conditions but without fully completing the work.

Additionally, a new contractor would require extra time to evaluate site conditions and refamiliarize themselves with the work scope, and their lack of historical system knowledge increases the likelihood of change orders. This duplication of effort would unnecessarily extend the project timeline.

Utilization of One Vendor/Incumbent As Centerra is currently onsite, performing the services with a fully staffed team with satisfactory performance, it is in the best interest of the Government in terms of economy and efficiency to execute a sole source BPA to extend the current services.

This BPA will serve as a logical follow-on as the scope of services will remain unchanged.

There are numerous avoided costs and gained efficiencies by utilizing one vendor/incumbent:

i. Base access and computer network access:

This is a cumbersome process and requires a minimum of 3 weeks to process base access for contractors. The Government is required to track every base access application by contractor. If there are multiple contractors for the project work order workload, the tasking would be beyond DPW current staffing levels. In addition, having one contractor will provide a single POC for any requests for additional information required to process base access applications.

Currently, there are two personnel assigned to managing base access for all DPW maintenance, janitorial service, and utility services. Using different contractors for PWOs would significantly increase their workload. Additional man hours would be required to facilitate base access for potential PWO contractors and their subs. Based on an average of 40 PWOs annually with an estimate of 2 hours Government time for each base access and an average of 5 contractor personal for each PWO, this would result in an additional 400 hours of Government processing time per PWO season (generally May – September) and an estimated cost of $16,000 to the Government.

Additionally, this effort is significant at a time when IMCOM-E/DPW staffing has been reduced drastically over the past year. Previous IMCOM-E audits recommended a staffing level increase of three personnel, and the department was in position to implement this recommendation prior to the hiring restrictions and cuts implemented in the summer of 2025. Three personnel had accepted the Alternate Contracting Officer Representative positions before this was put into effect. However, DPW was unable to onboard these personnel due to the restrictions.

Based on the above, the use of the incumbent allows the existing Government employees to spend more time on their primary duties since base access is normally a secondary assigned duty, and no additional cost to the Government.

ii. Single Point of Contact:

Using a single vendor allows the DPW project management team to coordinate on a variety of issues from invoicing, submittal reviews, work scheduling, work completion observation, and project closeout. Using multiple contractors would be beyond the current DPW staffing levels to coordinate such a wide variety of issues among numerous vendors’ points of contact.

Currently, there are only 5 personnel assigned to managing current workload of approximately 60 PWOs annually. These personnel manage the project for the Government including WAWF invoice processing, on site coordination for issue resolution, monitoring schedules, attending the PWO bi-weekly review meetings (where all executed PWOs are reviewed), and resolving technical questions from the contractor.

Use of the current contractor will allow the Government to achieve quick resolution of any cost, schedule, or performance concerns due to knowledge of contractor (incumbent) personnel networking. It will take significantly more time to coordinate with contractors not on site to review schedule, cost or more involved scoping or technical questions. Additional time can be attributed to coordinating meetings versus quick unscheduled meetings with onsite maintenance contractor. Currently, technical questions are quickly resolved with short notice on site meetings versus advanced meeting coordination. On site contractor’s primary business focus is base maintenance, which have regularly occurring meetings regarding BASOPS, while an outside contractor will have to coordinate Government requests with other competing non-government workloads.

iii. Dealing with vendor personnel turnover is always a challenge on project work order management. By using multiple vendors, the problem of re-training is compounded and increases the possibility of cost processing errors, scheduling mishaps, base access, and overall work status and management confusion – all resulting in a lower quality product for the Government.

iv. Incumbent Contractor:

Issuing a competitive solicitation would result in unnecessary duplication of costs, Government time, additional training of new contractor employees, and potential delays due to extended phase in operations and lack of bidding contractor facility knowledge.

Contractor phase-in costs based on historical information from the previous recompete is estimated at around $50k. The incumbent has already expended the resources to vet, onboard, train, and establish agreements with a reliable local pool of subcontractors, completing all necessary supply chain risk management. Retaining them avoids direct administrative costs, severe schedule delays, and operational risks a new contractor would face in attempting to replicate this critical vendor network. Utilizing the incumbent eliminates the need for a phase-in period. Their personnel already possess the required theater clearances, base access, and mandatory Government training.

Additionally, it allows for continuity and knowledge transfer. The current contractor has detailed knowledge of the facility, utility layouts, and networking with Government personnel to easily obtain approvals and permitting (i.e. digging permits and other administrative clearances). The incumbent is established within the local area and has navigated its specific complexities. They are familiar and compliant with host-nation labor laws, import/export tariffs, local payment systems, and municipal regulations.

Contracting Timelines Due to the expansive scope and expected value of the recompete, just under $200M, and change from a hybrid GSA BPA to a FFP IDIQ, the current milestones include a projected award date of June 2027. With a required phase-in, expected to be approximately 90 days, this period is estimated to last until September 2027, at the earliest. Using this as a basis, this demonstrates the bridge BPA period of performance is required until at least September 2027. To account for any unanticipated procurement delays that might prevent full performance under the new contract by September 2027, this justification permits ordering under the BPA for a total of 18 months.

Below are the current estimated contracting milestones:

Milestone Date

Acq. Strategy Approved 14-Jul-26

Solicitation Issued 1-Oct-26

Evaluations Start 15-Dec-26 Evaluations Complete 31-Mar-27

Pre-Award Docs Approved 31-May-27

Award 14-Jun-27

Phase-In Complete 14-Sep-27

Alternatives to a Bridge Action As discussed above, awarding a sole-source contract action to the incumbent contractor is the most economic and efficient plan of action. DPW and RCO-Stuttgart considered the following alternatives for addressing this requirement:

a) Performing all tasks included in the Overarching PWS and project work orders maintenance with in-house labor and/or excess military labor and materials. The current USAG-Stuttgart DPW workforce cannot perform the vast amount and array of maintenance management, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and documentation management required for the Garrison and its tenant units.

The DPW labor force of 15 personnel is not equipped nor sized for the required scope of the project work orders. Therefore, this is not a viable alternative.

Utilizing excess military labor for the Roads/Grounds and Snow/Ice removal is not possible due to the required specialized equipment, training, and labor required to maintain all USAG Stuttgart locations in conjunction with assigned military duties.

b) Solicitation of a short-term contract for Overarching work and Project Work Orders under full and open competition. A competitive acquisition would be impractical to the Government given procurement lead time. Based on the estimated value of the contract, it would take approximately five months to award a short-term competitive contract. Forecasted timelines to include Package Developments, Reviews and Document Approvals:

Pre Solicitation Phase (45 Days) Solicitation Phase (30 Days) Evaluation Phase (45 Days) Award Phase (30 Days)

Following award, additional time would be required to conduct an orderly phase-in of all tasks included in the Overarching work scope including setting up/turnover of maintenance management process, maintenance system account creations, access requirements, and general garrison familiarization in addition to develop individual PWOs. The phase-in ranges from 60-120 days based on market research. As this inclusive estimated timeline is 8 months, this course of action would result in a significant break in services required maintenance of facilities.

For PWOs, under our current process, the average order timeline is 100 days, from package development to order award, this timeline would increase exponentially with a Multiple Award IDIQ for PWOs. Additionally, depending on the contractor, each will require processing of personnel through IACS if they do not have current access through other contracts.

c) Use of existing contracts for the required services.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Job Order Contract (JOC) The Garrison identified the USACE JOC as a possible alternative for PWOs. This contract is limited to less than $350,000 per task order. The use of the JOC contract is best for simple construction tasks. Additionally, the JOC pricing list must include the required services to be utilized. A BPA provides more flexibility in scope and in the interest of efficiency and economy allows centralized administrative and internal operational support. However, it is currently utilized on a case-by-case basis when projects are within scope and as the acquisition timeline need allows.

Additionally, as the existing JOC management is in Vilseck and Wiesbaden, this restricts rapid project execution at the end of the fiscal year when funds are usually available for such projects. Under the incumbent, on-site vendor management for project scope development allows the Garrison to complete additional last-minute projects toward the end of the fiscal year.

The JOC scope is restricted in scope to specific major construction items including demolition, roofing, interior construction, and exterior construction.

Additionally, Fire Alarm Systems and HVAC projects are out of scope.

Approximately 20% of the PWOs from 2022 to 2025 were HVAC and 30% were Fire Alarm System work. 2026 projected PWOs are similar to the past with 30% HVAC and 20% Fire Alarm Systems.

Additionally, the JOC also does not allow for purchasing construction items such as lumber, concrete (necessity in many small space or partial floor renovation PWOs), or interior design services (necessary in minor interior renovation projects) and no work in Secure Compartment Information Security spaces.

There have been numerous PWOs related to these spaces.

USACE JOC also has a minimum project amount of $2,000 which would result in numerous small PWOs requiring new work that cannot be accomplished as a Demand Maintenance Order.

Worldwide Expeditionary Multiple Award Contract (WEXMAC) 2.0 WEXMAC 2.0 IDIQ was considered for base operations services outside of PWOs (Operational Work Orders, Demand Maintenance Orders, and Preventative Maintenance Orders). The order limitation is $7.5M and is intended for short-duration, expeditionary requirements with minimal oversight. The scope in terms of length of services, scale of support and dollar value far exceeds what is supported under the WEXMAC IDIQ.

d) Stand Alone FAR Part 12 Purchase Orders. Under the FAR RFO, orders under the Simplified Acquisition may be solicited directly to local source vendors only after posting a pre-solicitation notice to the GPE for 15 days before solicitation issuance. Utilizing standalone orders for recurring PWOs would be inefficient as:

-Procurement Lead time is longer for each individual PWO -Repeated Acquisition cycle labor touch is required (I.e. Market research, solicitation, evaluation, etc.)

-Requires significant time and effort to onboard contractors and their subs.

Impact if Not Approved If not approved, USAG Stuttgart will not be able to support the 28,000 service members, combatant commands, and tenant units. This loss of support would directly jeopardize mission accomplishment, severely degrade quality of life, and create unacceptable life, health, and safety risk for all personnel across the USAG Stuttgart area of responsibility.

Additionally, based on the previous calculations, the Government expects to save a minimum of $102,000 upfront2, which is a significant impact in funding for the Garrison to fund other services and projects. This is in addition to the non-monetary savings of Government manhours, retaining facility and local area networking knowledge, and incumbent’s familiarity with Government systems and processes.

7. Efforts to Obtain Competition: The Contracting Officer will publish the notice in accordance with GSAR 538.7104-3(b)(3). Based on the issues addressed in Section 5.

Reason for Authority Cited and Section 7. Market Research, responses received will be considered for the recompete solicitation.

a. Effective competition: Due to the acquisition timeline for the recompete, effective competition is not possible without additional time to avoid a break in services. Through Market Research under GSA, Contractors stated they would require anywhere from 60- 120 days to phase-in. The following recompete solicitation is expected to be released as a FAR Part 15 full and open procurement.

2 Based on calculated costs on previous pages.