15-0073_-_LSJ_(redacted).pdf

Encl (2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL SEA LOGISTICS CENTER

5450 CARLISLE PIKE

P.O. BOX 2060

MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055-0795

IN REPLY REFER TO

LSJ Number: 15-0073 Code: NSLC 02 P.R. Number: TBD

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

1. Contracting Activity

The contracting activity is the Naval Sea Logistics Center NSLC), Contracts Management Division; NSLC 02, Mechanicsburg, PA.

2. Description of the Action Being Approved

This action will serve as a subsequent bridge order from an existing GSA Schedule Task Order (TO) bridge action, to a competitively awarded SeaPort-e TO. It is for the award of a six-month base, plus two (2), three-month option periods, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) TO. This TO will be issued in accordance with the procedures of FAR 8.4, for Professional Engineering Services.

The estimated amount of th rement is for the six

(6) month base period and for each hree-month option periods. The total al dol e of this request, including base plus options is . The base period of performance will be from 22 Ju thru 21 December 2015.

The intended awardee is URS Federal Technical Services Incorporated, Germantown, MD.

3. Description of Supplies/Services

The present acquisition is for the continuation of professional support services for the NSLC managed NAVSEA Planned Maintenance Systems (PMS) Program, which is currently supported via GSA Contract GS23F0108J, TO N6572615F0002, with URS Federal Technical Services (URS). This TO was issued as a bridge order to the competitively awarded TO N6553809F0038 with URS.

The PMS program provides ships and activities with a simple and standard means for planning, scheduling, controlling, and performing planned maintenance of all Shipboard Systems and

Encl (2) 2

Equipment. The Naval Sea Logistics Center is tasked by NAVSEA 04 as the PMS Coordinating Activity for the entire Fleet and is responsible for centrally developing, managing, coordinating and disseminating all O-Level shipboard maintenance requirements.

The Naval Sea Logistics Center distributes PMS products to the Fleet and shore activities, receives and processes Electronic Technical Feedback Reports (ETFBRs) and provides PMS installation and PMS training support.

In support of the PMS program, a software package known as SKED is used for scheduling shipboard and shore-based PMS actions and to maintain data associated with the PMS program.

The Government is procuring Professional Engineering support services in support of the PMS Program. The intended vendor is tasked with providing support services related to PMS documentation development, maintenance, and distribution; PMS scheduling software (SKED) training; management of data in the PMS Management Information System (MIS); and, related PMS program management support.

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition and Supporting Rationale

(A) Statutory Authority

As this requirement is to be met through issuance of a GSA order, this procurement is exempt from the FAR Part 6.

Instead, the action is to be conducted under the authority of 41 U.S.C 152(3) (A), as implemented in FAR Part 8. The procedures and authority for limiting sources in the process of issuing a GSA order are found at FAR Part 8.405-6.

Specifically, the authority supporting this limited source justification is 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A), “An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays.”

(B) Supporting Rationale

This work is planned to roll onto our SeaPort-e Logistics Management Services (LMS) Support Order that ly being solicited and had been projected for a award (based on a very aggressive s ted award date has now been revised to based upon what is still considered to be an a sc e SeaPort-e action is taking longer than planned .

The previously bridged TO, N6553809F0038, recei

Encl (2) 3 significantly fewer proposals, so this high number of proposals was not anticipated.

The cost and technical review of the vendors’ initial proposals has revealed that significant discussions will be required with all vendors. This in turn will lead to revised proposals from the vendors which will require re-evaluation. Based upon the detailed nature of the questions asked during the solicitation phase, it was believed that the vendor community had a firm understanding of the requirements in the solicitation. We could not have anticipated the extent to which the vendors did not fully understand those requirements and the corresponding level of discussions that are now required to get to the point of requesting Final Proposal Revisions. Finally, existing manpower shortages combined with a high workload in the contract shop were further impacted by the loss of the Contract Specialist that was assigned to this requirement.

Transitioning the SeaPort-e action to a new Contract Specialist has caused some delay in the processing of Business Clearance Memorandum documentation. The manpower shortages have been addressed through hiring actions, but those resources will not be available until May and July 2015.

Based upon the above, award of the competitive SeaPort-e follow-on TO will not be possible prior to the expiration of the current GSA TO bridge action on 21 June 2015. It is critical that the Government proceed with the process of awarding a six (6) to 12 month subsequent bridge TO with URS, a large business, while concurrently soliciting this requirement as part of a larger acquisition, presently being solicited as a Small Business Set-Aside under SeaPort-e.

Issuing a new competitive bridge order with another vendor for this duration is not achievable by June, based upon reasons outlined above. If this subsequent bridge TO is not awarded to continue support for the NAVSEA PMS Program, it will jeopardize the readiness of the Navy ships currently at sea as follows:

• Loss of our ability to execute the PMS project with sufficient coverage to ensure getting proper maintenance procedures to the ships in a timely fashion.

• Backlogs of maintenance requirements and Fleet maintenance questions would develop.

• System and equipment material condition and mission readiness would suffer.

Encl (2) 4

• Sailor safety could be impacted.

5. Determination of Best Value

The NSLC Contracting Officer will make a best value determination consistent with FAR Part 8.404(d) at time of award. Proposal analysis shall be conducted in accordance with 15.404-1.

6. Market Research

Market Research was not conducted because this is a justification for a limited-source based upon an urgent and compelling need.

7. Other Facts Supporting the Justification

Not applicable.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

As stated in paragraph 4(B) above, the present requirement is included in a larger solicitation peted under SeaPort-e, which is scheduled to be awarded . Market research was conducted for the aforementioned solicitation. The following milestone table applies:

Milestone LRE Pre-BCM CRB Approval (KPT 02) Discussion Ques Amend Rel Discussion Ques Responses Due Discussions Conclude RFP Amend For FPR Released RFP Amend For FPR Closed Review of Tech Prop by 02 Tech/Cost Eval Begins Tech/Cost Eval Ends Post-BCM Drafted Post-BCM Approval (KPT 02) Award

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION (FAR 8.405-6 (c) (2) (x))

Encl (2) 5

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting acquisition planning data, including Acquisition Plan No. N/A, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. The Government’s minimum needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel identified below.

TECHNICAL COGNIZANCE:

Signature rinted) o. Date

REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

Signature N inted) o. Date

Signature N inted)(NSLC TD) No. Date

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NMCARS 5206.303(90))

I have determined this justification is legally sufficient.

Signature N inted) o. Date

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR 8.405-6 (c) (2) (ix))

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

COMPETITION ADVOCATE REVIEW

Signature N inted) o. Date

Approval by Designee of the Head of the Procuring Activity: