J&A_Signed.pdf

Template for a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 for orders valued at greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, including all options. This template is only applicable when requesting an acquisition as an exception to the fair opportunity process for task-and delivery-order contracts awarded against multiple-award contracts, such as indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts.

This template is not for use (i) with small business set asides in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), nor (ii) for Federal Supply Schedule contracts awarded pursuant to FAR 8.4. See FAR Subpart 16.5 for additional guidance.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 16.505 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Acquisition Title: Evaluation Design of the REAL Essentials TPP Program

Agency: PSC

PSC Divisions: ASA - Assistant Secretary for Administration

Acquisition Year (FY): 2019

Author: Amy F. Farb

2. Description of Action:

Nature: New Requirement Follow-on Order

Modification to Existing Delivery/Task Order/Contract Number: HHSP233201500035I_HHSP23337002T

Order Against: Multiple Award ID/IQ Contract Number:

Pricing: Firm-Fixed Price Time & Materials Cost Type

Funds: OMA Other Funds: PHS

3. Description of Applicable Contract Provisions:

Summarize all contract provisions relevant to this determination.

Sections B and C.

4. Description of Supplies or Services:

The estimated value of the proposed action, including all options, is: $ 1,098,403

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate.

• Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer).

• If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services. Provide information for any options included in the order.

• If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification; provided that if the action is to extend an existing order utilizing the -8 extension of services clause, this must be discussed.

This acquisition would modify existing Task Order #HHSP233201500035I_HHSP23337002T which was competed on the PSC IDIQ and awarded to Mathematica Policy Research. This TO provides evaluation design support and technical expertise to the Office of Population Affairs. The task order was established to provide evaluation research designs of programs being implemented by the OPA Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program that could be funded in the future. OPA receives ear-marked funding annually to conduct TPP research and evaluations, this TO prepares research and evaluation designs that can be funded with this funding stream. The period of performance for the original TO was September 4, 2015 through June 3, 2020 and specified the development four research designs. The total dollar amount obligated to date is $3,193,830. The modification will allow a 5th research design to be developed from the date of obligation through 24 months.

5. Authority and Rationale:

The Contracting Officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery/task order exceeding the micro purchase threshold unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies. FAR 16.505(b)(2). Mark the applicable exception:

The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A)];

Factually establish the urgent need, provide the required performance/delivery schedule, address the lead-time involved, address why other contractors cannot fulfill the government’s needs, and explain the harm/serious injury that will come to the government if the justification is not approved.

Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B)];

Explain what is unique or highly specialized about the supply or service, what level of quality is required and why only the specified contractor can meet the requirement. If the requirement is an item peculiar to one manufacturer, justify the restriction to the item peculiar to one manufacturer.

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 [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C)];

Provide the original order number and explain why it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, for example, in terms of scope, period of performance or value. Describe the process by which all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. Specify how recent the previous competitive order was and the number of times this exception has been used; discuss why the specific requirement continues and why it is to the benefit of the Government for the particular contractor to continue this work.

The proposed action is a modification to order HHSP233201500035I_HHSP23337002T that was awarded through a competitive process to Mathematica Policy Research in September 2015. All contract holders under the PSC IDIQ were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. Processing this action as a modification to this existing order will result in time and cost savings to the Government. The modification of this existing task order is the most expeditious and efficient method for a number of reasons.

Mathematica is actively engaged in this work now, have OMB approval, trained field staff, and work with the OPA TPP grantees regularly as part of this and other task orders. Acquiring the services from a potential new contractor will require additional time and financial resources to orient contract staff to the scope of the project and would be duplicative of some of Mathematica's current efforts.

Additionally, the new 2019 OPA TPP Program grants were just awarded-allowing Mathematica to begin working with those interested in implementing REAL Essentials now. Waiting until FY2020 to make the award would put the project and schedule in a delay that may jeopardize OPA's ability to develop and conduct the evaluation at all.

It is necessary to place the order to satisfy a minimum guarantee [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D)]; or When citing exception to the fair opportunity process under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iv), identify the contract clause and language that specifies the minimum guaranteed amount.

A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source. [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E)].

Provide a citation to the statutory authorization and a brief description of its content, or identify the specified source or other agency.

6. Agency Actions to Take or Remove Barriers That Led to Fair Opportunity Exception (If applicable):

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies of services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

The modification will be limited to a program evaluation design and not include launching the actual evaluation as the original contract allowed. A new solicitation can be openly competed if and when OPA decides to conduct the developed evaluation design.

7. Fair and Reasonable Price/Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated price/cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Insert a description of the techniques and applicable FAR provisions (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(b)) used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable cost. For example, did the Contracting Officer use a comparison of industry cost for similar work? The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor’s proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)) will be used to further ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. In addition, specify whether or not Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.

Prior to TO HHSP233201500035I_HHSP23337002T being established, market research was conducted to develop an IGCE. The market research included:

-A survey of pricing for similar services -A review of PSC IDIQ contract pricing -A comparison of prices quoted for the solicitation -A review of recently awarded contracts with the same labor categories and similar requirements

The solicitation was issued to all PSC IDIQ contract holders including hundreds of small and large businesses. Three quotes were received and Mathematica was awarded the contract based on a best value determination.

Similar market research was conducted to create the new IGCE for the additional level effort and little has changed. Only a few of the fees have changed and Mathematica is consistent with other similar firms on those fees. As a result of this research and the validation of the original market research, it was determined the competitive market for research evaluation designs has not changed substantially.

Due to the lack of major market changes, there is no evidence a new competitive solicitation would offer economic advantages over increasing the level of effort for this TO.

Signature: Date: 9/6/2019

Name: Victoria West Estabrook

Title: Contracting Officer

8. Any other facts supporting the justification:

Mathematica is performing the functions required for this new effort under the existing task order. Substantial duplication of cost to the Government is not expected to be recovered through competition as the contract has the processes in existence and no new added start-up costs would occur. There is also a time sensitive aspect as there is an immediate need to begin working with grantees to design the federal evaluation because they were just awarded grants and are considering the TPP curricula they will implement.

9. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity is accurate and complete.

Program Manager

Name: Amy F. Farb

Position Title: Division Director, Research and Evaluation

Email address: Amy.Farb@hhs.gov

Phone: 240-453-2836

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager)

Name: Diane Foley

Position Title: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs

Email address: Diane.Foley@hhs.gov

Signature:

Date: 9/5/2019

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name: Melissa McAbee Phone: 301-492-4710

Signature: Date: 06 September 19

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million value calculated including all options)):

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur: Non-Concur:

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of stated supplies/services being procured on the exception to the fair opportunity basis pursuant to the authority of paragraph 5, 41 U.S.C. 4101, as implemented by FAR 16.501-2.

State supplies/services being procured:

This acquisition would modify existing Task Order #HHSP233201500035I_HHSP23337002T which was competed on the PSC IDIQ and awarded to Mathematica Policy Research. This TO provides evaluation design support and technical expertise to the Office of Population Affairs. The task order was established to provide evaluation research designs of programs being implemented by the OPA Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program that could be funded in the future. OPA receives ear-marked funding annually to conduct TPP research and evaluations, this TO prepares research and evaluation designs that can be funded with this funding stream. The period of performance for the original TO was September 4, 2015 through June 3, 2020 and specified the development four research designs. The total dollar amount obligated to date is $3,193,830. The modification will allow a 5th research design to be developed from the date of obligation through 24 months.

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

Template for a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 for orders valued at greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, including all options. This template is only applicable when requesting an acquisition as an exception to the fair opportunity process for task- and delivery-order contracts awarded against multiple-award contracts, such as indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts. This template is not for use (i) with small business set asides in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), nor (ii) for Federal Supply Schedule contracts awarded pursuant to FAR 8.4. See FAR Subpart 16.5 for additional guidance.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 16.505 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

2. Description of Action:

Nature:

Order Against:

Multiple Award ID/IQ Contract Number:

Pricing:

Funds:

3. Description of Applicable Contract Provisions:

Summarize all contract provisions relevant to this determination.

4. Description of Supplies or Services:

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate.

· Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer).

· If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services. Provide information for any options included in the order.

· If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification; provided that if the action is to extend an existing order utilizing the -8 extension of services clause, this must be discussed.

5. Authority and Rationale:

The Contracting Officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery/task order exceeding the micro purchase threshold unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies. FAR 16.505(b)(2). Mark the applicable exception:

Factually establish the urgent need, provide the required performance/delivery schedule, address the lead-time involved, address why other contractors cannot fulfill the government’s needs, and explain the harm/serious injury that will come to the government if the justification is not approved.

Explain what is unique or highly specialized about the supply or service, what level of quality is required and why only the specified contractor can meet the requirement. If the requirement is an item peculiar to one manufacturer, justify the restriction to the item peculiar to one manufacturer.

Provide the original order number and explain why it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, for example, in terms of scope, period of performance or value. Describe the process by which all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. Specify how recent the previous competitive order was and the number of times this exception has been used; discuss why the specific requirement continues and why it is to the benefit of the Government for the particular contractor to continue this work.

When citing exception to the fair opportunity process under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iv), identify the contract clause and language that specifies the minimum guaranteed amount.

Provide a citation to the statutory authorization and a brief description of its content, or identify the specified source or other agency.

6. Agency Actions to Take or Remove Barriers That Led to Fair Opportunity Exception (If applicable):

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies of services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

7. Fair and Reasonable Price/Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated price/cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Insert a description of the techniques and applicable FAR provisions (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(b)) used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable cost. For example, did the Contracting Officer use a comparison of industry cost for similar work? The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor’s proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)) will be used to further ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. In addition, specify whether or not Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.

Signature:

Date:

Name:

Title:

Contracting Officer

9. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity is accurate and complete.

Program Manager Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Phone:

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager) Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Signature:

Date:

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million value calculated including all options)):

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur:

Non-Concur:

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of stated supplies/services being procured on the exception to the fair opportunity basis pursuant to the authority of paragraph 5, 41 U.S.C. 4101, as implemented by FAR 16.501-2.

State supplies/services being procured:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304 Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11.0.0.20130303.1.892433.887364 Justification & Approval - Exemption to Fair Opportunity Health and Human Services Justification & Approval - Exemption to Fair Opportunity

-A survey of pricing for similar services -A review of PSC IDIQ contract pricing -A comparison of prices quoted for the solicitation -A review of recently awarded contracts with the same labor categories and similar requirements

The solicitation was issued to all PSC IDIQ contract holders including hundreds of small and large businesses. Three quotes were received and Mathematica was awarded the contract based on a best value determination.

Similar market research was conducted to create the new IGCE for the additional level effort and little has changed. Only a few of the fees have changed and Mathematica is consistent with other similar firms on those fees. As a result of this research and the validation of the original market research, it was determined the competitive market for research evaluation designs has not changed substantially. Due to the lack of major market changes, there is no evidence a new competitive solicitation would offer economic advantages over increasing the level of effort for this TO.