Paul Hamilton EFOM 19N_Final_9.12.24_Redacted.pdf

Exception to Fair Opportunity Template Update AUG 2018

JUSTIFICATION for an EXCEPTION to FAIR OPPORTUNITY for the placement of an order >$3,500 under a Multiple Award Contract (MAC)

Upon the basis of the following justification, I, Jacob Fox, as Contracting Officer of Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, hereby approve the Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity Pursuant to FAR 16.505(b)(2).

JUSTIFICATION

l. Agency and Contracting Activity Department of the Navy, Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (SWRMC).

2. Nature/Description of Action This is a fair opportunity exception to add new work for the Paul Hamilton (DDG-60) FY 2024 Selected Restricted Availability (SRA) awarded to BAE under Contract N00024-22-D-4443 Delivery Order N55236-24-F5022

3. Description of Supplies/Services The procurement is to accomplish Pre-Light Off Assessment (LOA) Preventative Maintenance in order to accomplish repairs in the Gas Turbine Modules (GTM) 1A and 1B to correct newly discovered exhaust leaks, under Work Item 259-12-001 on the USS PAUL HAMILTON (DDG- 60), as detailed in Request for Contract Change (RCC) 19N. Key dates are detailed in Section J Attachment J-5, Availability Milestones and Key Events, with an Availability start date of and an Availability completion date of . Funding will be FY24 OPN.

BAE provided a Change Order Price Analysis (COPA) for the value of for RCC 19N. Project Manager (PM) has technically concurred with the COPA on .

The Government's minimum needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

4. Identification of the Exception to Fair Opportunity [FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i)]

Identification/Justification for Exception:

a. The agency need for services is of such urgency that providing fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

b. Only one such awardee is capable of providing such services required at the level of quality required because the services ordered are unique or highly specialized.

c. The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the MAC, provided that all the awardees were given fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

The USS PAUL HAMILTON (DDG-60) GTM 1A and 1B exhausts are currently leaking, . New work will address and rectify the currently identified exhaust leaks; there is no method to accomplish temporary repairs. The leaks were identified during the G-1-E-8 inspection completed in . The repairs are anticipated to span approximately to accomplish.

If the work is not completed during the current availability, and prior to the Production Completion Date (PCD) of , the GTM 1A and 1B cannot be operated, and will prevent the ship�s ability to achieve Light Off. Failing LOA, the USS PAUL HAMILTON will not achieve contract completion, by the scheduled End of Availability of

, and will place in jeopardy the . Without these repairs, the USS PAUL HAMILTON will not return to the Fleet in a timely manner and impact the Fleet's capability to execute missions, from the routine to the most critical.

Awarding a competitive follow-on contract under the USS PAUL HAMILOTN is estimated to add no fewer than 120 days beyond the current scheduled PCD date of

24. Additional impact to initiate a competitive follow-on contract under the USS PAUL HAMILTON in a timely manner will affect all current contractual milestones, cascading to the Availability Completion (AC) Key Event.

Ship�s Force basic and advanced training schedules will also experience negative schedule impacts. All delays previously described will result in a minimum y of the USS PAUL HAMILTON operational deployment schedule with the potential for further delays should execution risks be realized along the way.

Adding this work item to the existing Delivery Order under BAE is in the best interests of the Government in order to complete the scheduled availability on time with BAE support services already in place. Introducing another contractor at this stage will create inefficiencies during execution. The ship is already in their SRA, . If this work is not accomplished prior to the PCD Project Milestone of the AC and Sea Trials Project Milestones will not be met. Having another contractor or soliciting this work would delay the schedule and affect milestones, placing the AC due date at risk, which in-turn affects . The Contracting Officer reviewed the justification and has determined it to be accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government is fair and reasonable.

d. It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

e. For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

5. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost.

A thorough review and analysis, with regard to price and scope, of the BAE COPA for RCC 19N has been conducted by the Project Manager (PM) and the Maintenance Team (MT) then verified by the Contracting Officer. Determination of fair and reasonable of BAE�s COPA has been accomplished by price analysis, cost element analysis, and technical analysis was for reasonableness of labor hours in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(vii) and FAR 15.404- 1(e)(1). A combination of the MT technical knowledge and skills along with the awarded Section J Attachment J-3 was used to determine the COPA to be fair and reasonable.

6. Any Other Facts Supporting the Justification.

This Delivery Order has already been solicited to MAC IDIQ contract holders and all were provided the opportunity to submit their proposals. BAE, with this awarded delivery order contract, is contracted to provide services the ship will be in their facility, thus the inefficiencies of competing this requirement will not overcome the unacceptable delays that would accrue from waiting for a contract award for repairs of the 1A and 1B GTM exhausts, performed during the contract performance period. Given the nature of the solicitation, the urgency and current ship location, award to the current contractor can satisfy the Agency�s requirement and will not result in serious injury to the government.

7. Actions Taken to Remove or Overcome Barriers that Led to the Exception to Fair Opportunity.

Upon discovery of the required 1A and 1B GTM repairs, discussions commenced with Government leadership to analyze the best course of action given the Availability�s schedule and the available options. Due to the time restraint on when the work was to be completed to not impact the overall availability schedule and various other sequenced working events, it was determined that there was not sufficient time to solicit out the new work as this would take a minimum of 120 days to receive an awarded contract. Between the MAC IDIQ holders, it was not guaranteed that BAE would be successful in obtaining this scope of work, which means, there would have additional time delays to get the awarded company and for this company to complete the work from set up to tear down. Cost was also a factor as BAE would most likely have the better price due to the and with the necessary services made readily available. Due to the high likely hood of a higher cost to the government and unacceptable timeframes outside the awarded availability schedule, it is in the Government�s best interest to include this new work into the existing delivery order.

TECHNICAL AND REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and which form a basis for this justification are complete and accurate.

BRANCH HEAD

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)(2) � Review due to action exceeds $750,000.00

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

Signature:____________________________________________________________________

COMPETITION ADVOCATE or HEAD OF PROCURING ACTIVITY

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)(2) - Approval if action is between $750K through $15M

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)(3) - Review if action exceeds $15M

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

Signature:_____________________________________________________________________

HEAD OF THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)(3) - Approval if action is between $15M through $100M

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(c)(3) - Review if action exceeds $100M

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

Signature:_____________________________________________________________________