NRCHQ1014E0001-NRCHQ2016T0001_EFO_FBO.pdf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Management Division

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity”: This is a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity to be executed by the NRC Acquisition Management Division (AMD).

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved. The action to be approved is award of a noncompetitive follow-on task order under Contract No. NRC-HQ-10-14-E-0001 as a new task order for Components 3 and 4, also known as Oversight and Interface Feature Sets 3 and 4, respectively.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs

(including the estimated value):

The Contractor under MOM FA4 is currently supporting the development and implementation of the Replacement Reactor Program System (RRPS). The anticipated feature sets of the RRPS in the order of development and deployment are as follows: First Component - Operator Licensing (OL); Second Component - Workload Management and Licensing Activities (NRR’s Firefly) and Inspection Scheduling and Tracking (legacy RPS Inspections), Third Component

- Reactor Oversight Process (ROP), Reactor Operating Events (ROE) & ROE-Web module, and Human Factor Information System (HFIS); and the Fourth Component - Interfaces and Data, Shared Functions, including Queries and Reports.

In February 2015, the NRC issued a competitive task order to Centeva LLC to develop Feature Set 1 of the RRPS, which was the Operating Licensing module. Under that same task order, Centeva was subsequently tasked to perform Feature Set 2, which focuses specifically on replacing the functionality in RPS Inspections and Licensing modules.

The follow-on task order would task Centeva to complete the remaining two RRPS feature sets, which include: (i) Oversight that includes events review, human factors, and Reactor oversight Process (ROP) and (ii) data interfaces, reporting and other shared functions, combining them into a single software application, alongside the previously developed Operator Licensing, Licensing and Inspections modules. The two efforts will overlap, with project development and implementation activities in all the feature sets or components of RRPS running concurrently. The primary objectives of the Oversight, Interfaces, Reports & shared functions is to utilize the data from previously developed RRPS modules and use the results of inspections and licensing available for reactor Oversight functions and processes.

In the legacy RPS Oversight, computer interactive modules are:

• HFIS- Human Factors Information System (approximately 15 users)

• ROE - Reactor Operating Events (approximately 20 users)

• ROEWEB - Reactor Operating Events - web – (approximately 5 users)

• Revised Reactor Oversight Process (RROP) – (less than 10 users)

Each of these modules will be replaced in Feature Set 3 or absorbed into an existing module of RRPS by automating legacy manual processes. All of these modules mentioned above are an integral part of legacy RPS and considered essential for providing oversight to NRR’s inspection and licensing programs.

The estimated price of this action is $2.8 Million for a period of performance of two years comprised of a one year base period starting September 26, 2016 – September 25, 2017 and an additional one year option period.

4. Identification of the exception to fair opportunity (see 16.505(b)(2)) and the supporting rationale, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. If the contracting officer uses the logical follow-on exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value):

Exception that applies: 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.

Feature Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 are major components of RRPS project, which is limited to the modernization of the legacy RPS. Feature Set 1 involves the development of the Operator Licensing (OL) component, Feature Set 2 involves replacing the functionality in RPS Inspections and Licensing, Feature Set 3 will involve oversight functions including Reactor Oversight Process (ROP), Human Factors, Operating Events and Power Reactor Status, and Feature Set 4 will involve the data interfaces, reporting and other share functions, combining them into a single software application, alongside the previously developed Operator Licensing, Licensing and Inspections modules.. The focus will be to combine the four RRPS feature sets into a single software application that works in conjunction with each other. These efforts will overlap, with project activities in Feature Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 running concurrently.

Because the feature sets are integral and essential components of the RRPS project, it would be impractical to have this work performed by a different MOM FA4 vendor. Although the remaining MOM FA4 vendors could potentially become proficient in supporting the RRPS project, the cost of transitioning the work to a second development contractor would be significant and expected to exceed $500K. Transition activities alone would be extensive and include knowledge transfer about the existing FA4 vendor’s development methodology, low level design, Operator Licensing, Licensing, and Inspections functionalities, their understanding of other agency-wide initiatives like Master Data Management (MDM) and Cost Accounting Management Project (CAMP) and their relationship with legacy and replacement RPS to the new FA4 vendor. Bringing a new FA4 vendor also will pose the challenge of managing two vendors with ongoing concurrent development efforts in the same environment.

Further, work including artifacts developed by the FA3 vendor would also have to be transitioned to the FA4 vendor.

Given the limited resources and timeline for RRPS deployment as well as the reliance of other legacy system modernization projects such as Master Data Management (MDM), Task Assignment Control Legacy System Replacement (TAC LSR), and the Centralized Reporting Information Services (CRIS)) on RRPS, it is not possible to complete a successful transition without impacting the RRPS project schedule. Considering its complexity, RRPS transition would also negatively impact MDM and CAMP project schedules. Tasking the remaining two https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2016_5.html#wp1095799

RRPS feature sets to a different vendor would thus create inefficiencies and economic impacts that would not be expected to be recovered through competing this work among the FA4 contractors.

In summary, a sole-source award to Centeva, LLC is warranted in the interest of economy and efficiency because the completion of the remaining two feature sets in the development and implementation of the RRPS is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, and all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

5. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the

Government will be fair and reasonable.

The MOM Contracting Officer (CO) will perform price analysis and only award a modification after determining that the anticipated price to the Government is fair and reasonable.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification:

During pre-solicitation industry sessions and when the TO RFP was issued on October 30, 2014, the NRC informed all MOM Functional Area Four (FA4) contractors that the NRC intended to non-competitively award task orders to include the remaining RRPS project components and the maintenance of previously developed components, as logical follow-on work to the initial task order.

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:

The Acquisition Management Division will closely scrutinize any subsequent requests for acquisition of similar services and will ensure that any restrictions to competition are adequately supported and documented. The Contracting Officer will also post this justification within 14 days after placing an order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b).

8. 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.

The signature below represents the Contracting Officer Representative’s (COR) certification that 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.

Gayathri M Sastry, COR Date

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

The signature below represents contracting officer’s (CO) certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

Heriberto Colón, Jr., CO Date

Concurrence:

Kala Shankar Date Branch Chief, ADM/AMD

10. A written determination by the approving official that one of the circumstances in

(b)(2)(i)(A) through (E) of this section applies to the order.

Competition Advocate Approval signature below constitutes a determination by the approving official that FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) applies to this modification.

James C. Corbett Date Competition Advocate