JOFOC - RCS-H-12-00253.pdf

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (JOFOC)

(In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.3 – Other than Full and Open

Competition)

1. Agency: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Requirement Activity: Procurement Management Division for the Department of Housing’s Office of Risk

Contracting Activity: OCPO HQ/NPH

2. The nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (The Department or HUD) regulates the design and construction of manufactured housing. The National Manufactured Housing Construction and

Safety Standards Act of 1974 (the Act), implemented in June 1976, established the framework for the preemptive Federal Standards and the related manufactured housing regulatory programs (HUD programs) in use today. A copy of the Act can be obtained from the Contracting Officer upon request and is located on

HUD’s website: www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mhs/manhsgst.pdf. HUD administers several manufactured housing regulatory programs, of which monitoring the performance of cooperating agencies is one. HUD generally implements the monitoring portion of its program through two sets of regulations: (1) 24 CFR

3280, Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards (the Standards), which is a nationally preemptive set of standards for the design and construction of these homes (commonly known in this industry as the HUD Code); and (2) 24 CFR 3282, Manufactured Housing Procedural and Enforcement

Regulations (the Regulations), which generally govern the enforcement of the HUD Code. HUD uses

Contractors to assist in the implementation of the program.

In recent years, HUD’s role has become more important in assuring that the quality of the home is maintained and that consumer complaints with manufacturer service are appropriately addressed. This role has also been broadened by a trend in the industry to apply innovation to the factory-built home, employing more creative designs and utilizing new products. This serves to enhance the role of HUD and its monitoring and inspection agent, as they are continuously called upon to respond to questions and concerns regarding designs evaluated in accordance with the performance-based Standards.

HUD administers the program, supported by agreements with 37 States’ Administrative Agencies (SAAs) and contracts with various private firms and non-profits. HUD also uses the services of an administering organization to support the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee; a committee that provides recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revises, and interpret certain standards and regulations. HUD’s effort to obtain the services of qualified Contractors reflects its commitment to safe, durable, and quality housing. To cover the costs of administering this program, home manufacturers in this program are charged a monitoring fee (currently $39 per section or floor). Currently there are six (6) Design-Approval Primary

Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) and fourteen (14) In-Plant Production Primary Inspection Agencies (IPIAs), both public and private, approved by HUD to conduct design review and in-plant inspections. Nine (9) of the fourteen (14) active HUD-approved agencies are units of State government and the remaining five (5) are private for-profit corporations, as listed on HUD’s website: www.hud.gov/offices/sfh/mhs/mhsid.cfm. Other http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mhs/manhsgst.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/sfh/mhs/mhsid.cfm services include alternative construction reviews, special investigations and studies, regulatory specialist services, and customer feedback.

3. Description of the supplies or services required, including an estimated value:

The requirements of this procurement address the principal tasks for the monitoring and administration of the

DAPIAs and IPIAs programs and the performance assessments of the SAAs. The estimated value of the services to be performed during the six (6) month bridge is approximately

4. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition:

6.302-1 – Only one responsible source and no other services will satisfy the agency’s requirements given the short timeframe to secure the services of a qualified contractor in order to circumvent a lapse in services until a competitive procurement can be awarded.

5. A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

Services are currently being provided under Contract No. C-OPC-23006 with the Institute for

Building Technology and Safety, INC. (IBTS). The contract was awarded on a competitive basis and the company was determined to be the overall best qualified to perform the services. The Contractor is and has been involved with the Design-Approval Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIA) and In-

Plant Production Primary Inspection Agencies (IPIAs) and the State’ Administrative Agencies

(SAAs) program for over thirty (30) years. The depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated by the contractor during the performance of the current contract makes them uniquely qualified to perform the services during the 6 (six) month bridge. The contractor’s experience is unique because the contractor has extensive knowledge of working with HUD’s national building code (24 CFR 3280) in the areas of code administration and enforcement for several years. In addition, this is a unique federal regulation because building codes are typically administered at the local level. However, this statute and regulation regulate all manufactured housing units nationally regardless of where they are ultimately located.

The contractor has comprehensive knowledge of the entities involved in the production, transportation and installation of manufactured homes- manufacturers, retailers, installers, IPIAs, DAPIAs, State Administering Agencies, and local building code officials, as well as, in addressing issues arising from federal preemption. The contractor’s expertise in the manufactured housing construction and safety standards and their relationship with local building code officials enables its staff to identify and resolve such preemption issues quickly and effectively.

The contractor’s staff has achieved a unique body of knowledge, training and experience with a national building code program—the manufactured housing construction and safety standards. The replication of such program on a short notice could only be accomplished using experienced HUD internal staff at a much higher cost.

Without an extensive and reasonable transition period for phase-in and phase out between the incumbent and a new contractor, there is no other organization or source, with the exception of the incumbent that currently:

o possess the in-depth knowledge or familiarity with HUD’s National Building Code and

Standards for Manufactured Homes; HUD’s Regulations to enforce those Standards; HUD’s

National Installation Standards; and the myriad interpretations associated with the Standards and Regulations needed to perform the monitoring functions required in fulfilling the requirement;

o is ready to implement monitoring procedures acceptable to HUD for review of designs, quality assurance manuals and overall performance of HUD’s Design Approval Primary

Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) and for the maintenance and storage of the 6.7 million approved documents in the electronic library;

o is ready to implement monitoring procedures acceptable to HUD to evaluate and audit the overall performance of HUD’s In-plant Primary Inspection Agencies (IPIAs) and their assessment of manufacturer’s quality assurance and quality control programs in every production facility;

o has monitoring procedures available that are acceptable to HUD to audit the performance of

State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) to evaluate their effectiveness in enforcing the HUD

Standards and Regulations;

o has the capacity to administer HUD’s label program and distribute and track approximately

40,000 labels which are expected to be issued to IPIAs during the six month contract bridge period.

o is familiar with the required integration between the required principal monitoring functions such as required by Principal Task Two- In-Plant Primary Inspection Agency (IPIA)

Monitoring and Principal Task Three- DAPIA Monitoring. DAPIAs are required to approve manufacturer’s designs and quality assurance manuals when they conform to the Standards and Regulations, while IPIAs are to verify that the manufacturer can follow its approved QA manual and produce homes in conformance with the approved designs and the Standards.

When failures to conform are identified by the monitoring contractor or from any source, IPIAs and DAPIAs are required to work in close coordination to verify that all homes have been corrected and that designs have been revised as appropriate to prevent future recurrences of the problem(s). Both IPIAs and DAPIAs are responsible for assisting the Secretary and

State Administrative Agencies (SAAs)-Principal Task Four in identifying classes of homes that may have been released by the manufacturer. Also, contractual activities such as issuing

40,000 labels to IPIAs; record keeping and reporting of label usage to HUD; state fee accounting and payment process requirements; and, review and preparation of Special

Construction/Alternative Construction requests.

6. Description of the efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 5.2:

A sources sought RFI was posted on FedBizOpps in accordance with FAR Part 5.2039a) on July 20, 2012 through August 2, 2012. The RFI did not have area restrictions for the contractor business location. Only one source responded with a capability statement, the incumbent contractor, The Institute for Building

Technology & Safety (IBTS).

In an effort to identify other potential sources, the Contracting Officer will host an Industry Day Conference during the first quarter of FY13. A notice will be published in FedBizOpps in accordance with 5.203(a) to announce that the Government intends to enter into a sole source contract.

7. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contractor proposed prices were compared to the independent Government’s cost estimate (IGCE), historical prices and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) labor category wage rates. The Contracting Officer also requested a certificate of cost and prices. The CO reviewed the IGCE and wage rates and found them to be comparable. Based on these comparisons and the certificate of cost and prices provided by the

Contractor, the Contracting Officer has determined that the cost is fair and reasonable to the Government.

8. Description of the market research conducted, and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted:

The program office conducted an extensive market research analysis for the re-procurement of the manufactured home monitoring services requirement. The market research was conducted using North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for engineering services (NAICS- 541330) and inspection services (NAICS 541350) using the Business Partner Network (BPN) website

(https://www.bpn.gov/CCRSearch/results.aspx). The market research was conducted in the geographical area of Washington, DC, Virginia and Maryland.

A total of 700 potential companies were reviewed as possible sources under the respective NAICS code identified above. However, based on further analysis and review, there were only five companies identified as potential qualified firms from the engineering and inspection services. Based on this review, five companies were identified as potential sources from the engineering and inspection services review. Those potential firms identified are as follows:

Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Associates, Fairfax VA (018383781)

Institute for Building Safety and Technology, Herndon VA (07011071)

Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc., Chantilly VA (101923928) & Laurel MD (044760510)

Dewberry and Davis, Fairfax VA (178795948) & Gaithersburg MD (092391168)

Rolf Jensen & Associates, Fairfax VA (195020714) & Laurel MD (198327608)

A sources sought RFI was posted on FedBizOpps in accordance with FAR Part 5.2039a) on July 20, 2012 through August 2, 2012. The RFI did not have geographical area restrictions for contractor business https://www.bpn.gov/CCRSearch/results.aspx location. Only one source responded with a capability statement, the incumbent contractor, The Institute for

Building Technology & Safety (IBTS).

In an effort to identify other potential sources, the Contracting Officer will host an Industry Day Conference during the first quarter of FY13. A notice will be published in FedBizOpps in accordance with 5.203(a) to announce that the Government intends to enter into a sole source contract.

9. Other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

No other facts.

10. Sources, if any, that expressed an interest, in writing, in the acquisition:

The Institute for Building Technology & Safety (IBTS) – DUNS: 0701110721

11. The actions the Agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

In an effort to identify other potential sources, the Contracting Officer will host an Industry Day

Conference during the first quarter FY13. The requirement documents and evaluation criteria for solicitation will be carefully scrutinized to make them as generic as possible in nature and scope in order to encourage the broadest possible number of competitive responses from other offerors.

Additionally, the new contract will include provisions for a phase in, phase out provision, similar to the plan in the current contract. It is anticipated that it will require about 12 weeks from the date of award for HUD to provide acceptance of the plan and an additional 12 weeks to complete implementation of the plan. Because the services provided are both regulatory and complex in nature, it will be necessary for the incumbent to work together with the new contractor to assist with getting up to speed during the transitional period.