Redacted_0056_LSJ.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
LSJ
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION Comment by Zemel, Avital: FAR 8.405-6 (c)(2)(i) requires that this document be specifically identified as a “Limited-Sources Justification.” Comment by Hart, Laconda: ok
1. Identification of the Agency and the Contracting Activity
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), Office of Acquisition Management, Research Triangle Park (RTP) Procurement Operations Division is requesting the approval of a limited- sources justification to extend the Agency’s Network and Security Operations Task Order (GS-35F-4797H, Task Order #0056) for 6 months. The current task order services expire March 31, 2017. Comment by Zemel, Avital: Remember that this document will be posted for public review, so you will want to make sure to explain all acronyms and also make sure that this document is understandable to the public who might not otherwise have familiarity with EPA and this procurement. Clarity may help avoid misunderstandings, especially since limited sources justifications can be protested. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-408686.5, December 22, 2014 (standard of review is reasonableness). Comment by Hart, Laconda: Ok
2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.
CGI Federal (CGI) currently provides the Agency’s Network and Security Operations services under Task Order #0056 issued under CGI’s Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) for Information Technology Services– Environmental Protection Agency II (ITS-EPA II). This BPA was awarded via CGI’s U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule 70 contract under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). The task order included a base year and five option years with Option Period V ending September 30, 2016. The Agency exercised a six-month extension until March 31, 2017 utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The extension was initially intended to allow time to award new follow on contracts. Comment by Zemel, Avital: Is this the full name of the contractor – or is it CGI Federal? See paragraph 6 on page 2 of this document. Comment by Hart, Laconda: Changed to full name Comment by Zemel, Avital: I’ve added in this sentence, but is this an accurate statement? It is helpful to identify this upfront so that the reader is clear on why FAR 8.4 is being referenced in terms of a limited sources justification. Comment by Hart, Laconda: Yes, this is accurate
| Task Order #0056 includes two primary subtasks: Wide Area Network (WAN) Operations and Security Management. The WAN Operations includes the operation and maintenance (O&M) of EPA WAN infrastructure, Domain Name Servers (DNS), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), Internet Protocol (IP) address management and datacenter network services. Security Management includes the O&M of EPA perimeter and datacenter security infrastructure including Next Generation Firewalls, Intrusion Detection and Prevention and Vulnerability scanning services. Approximately a third portion of the WAN Operation services were to be transitioned to a new contract. However, there have been complications and delays for the new contract resulting from amendments and protests related to the acquisition of enterprise network systems-related services and equipment, including the implementation of the Agency corrective action resulting from the latest protest. The remaining portion of the WAN Operation services were to be transitioned to the follow on contract to the ITS-EPA II BPAs also known as ITS-EPA III. The services under the other subtask, Security Management, were to also be transitioned to the ITS-EPA III follow on award. The General Services Administration (GSA) through an assisted acquisition with EPA is currently in the process of awarding the ITS-EPA III contracts. The ITS-EPA III contract is broken out into four individual task orders. GSA is intending to award these four task orders in different time frames. It is expected that the task order including the network and security services will be awarded and transitioned after March 31, 2017 but before September 30, 2017. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/16/17; Are you sure you want to use the plural form here? | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: You’ll want to make sure that you are not revealing any procurement-sensitive information that has not been made publicly available by GSA. Do you need this sentence? | |
| The extension time would allow for transition of services to the follow-on ITS-EPA III orders and allow time to resolve the complications and delays associated with the?acquisition of enterprise network systems-related services and equipment, The period of performance for task order #0056 will expire on March 31, 2017. Therefore, to prevent a loss of service, there is a continued need for the network and security support and operations currently provided under Task Order #0056. The Contracting Activity is requesting approval to limit sources to the current vendor CGI for an additional six-month extension. It is in the best interest of the Government to extend the current services under the current task order #0056 thru September 30, 2017. If the task order expires, the Agency would lose these vital services. CGI currently holds the task order for these services and therefore is the only source fully capable of providing the required services within the time constraints imposed by the current schedule. The required services are specialized in nature due in large part to the size and complexity of the Agency Network and Security Operations. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/16/17: Do you want to use the plural form here? | Comment by Hart, Laconda: This has been clarified | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: The statement that there are “time constraints imposed by the current schedule” is conclusory in that it does not explain what the time constraints imposed by the current schedule are. The statement that the services are specialized in nature due “in large part to the size and complexity of the operations” is conclusory in that it does not explain the size and complexity of the operations, and what the part beyond “the large part” would be. The failure to explain this sentence in this Limited-Sources Justification raises a significant risk in the event of a protest. Do you need this sentence in this paragraph, since this would really belong under paragraph 4 (rationale)? |
| Comment by Hart, Laconda: |
3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency's needs:
The Agency requires extended support for Network and Security Operations from April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 under Task Order #0056. Under this order, the contractor provides operational security to include using and managing firewalls, intrusion prevention/detection technologies, caching/web filtering, and other means to secure and protect EPA information and infrastructure against threats. They also provide ad hoc analyses for risk mitigation and incident management. The network and security operations are broken into two major subtasks: Wide Area Network (WAN) Operations and Security Management services. WAN Operations includes operation and maintenance (O&M) of EPA WAN infrastructure, Domain Name Servers (DNS), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), Internet Protocol (IP) address management and datacenter network services. Security Management includes O&M of EPA perimeter and datacenter security infrastructure including Next Generation Firewalls, Intrusion Detection and Prevention and Vulnerability scanning services. The extended support for Network Operations from April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 will be a continuation of the work being provided under Task Order #0056.? Comment by Hart, Laconda: The Program provided additional details of these services here Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: This paragraph explains what the contractor is currently providing for EPA, but does not seem to clearly indicate what the contractor will be providing under the extended support. I’ve added in some language that may work, but please confer with the program for accuracy and modify as factually appropriate.
The total estimated value for the extension is $XXXXX
4. Identification of the authority and supporting rationale.
| This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple-Award Schedule Program. In accordance with FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B), it is the Government’s position that only one source is capable of providing the services required at the level of quality required because the services are highly specialized for the duration of this extension. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: I am not seeing an adequate supporting rationale here. Why is it that CGI is the only one source that is capable of providing the services, especially since paragraph 6 states “any of those seven vendors could potentially propose to meet this current requirement”? Are you saying that it would take too much time at this point to conduct a competition for the interim services, to include preparing and publishing an RFQ, waiting a reasonable time for vendors to respond, and evaluating the responses that could take a period of weeks? Are you also saying then that the only reasonable solution to avoid an interruption in the services is to award a short-term bridge contract to the current incumbent without competition until a properly competed contract can be awarded? This is the rationale used in Systems Integration & Management, Inc., B-402785.2, August 10, 2010, but the rationale used there was that there was an urgent and compelling need and following the order procedures would result in unacceptable delays. Please re-consider the authority/supporting rationale. | Comment by Hart, Laconda: Addressed your concerns here | |
| Failure to extend Task Order #0056 would directly impact the Agency’s Network and Security Operations. These highly specialized services? include the O&M for critical networking infrastructure (routers and switches) supporting the primary EPA datacenter, numerous application environments and the EPA network perimeter. An interruption in these mission- critical support services would have an immediate adverse impact to basic key components of the overall IT infrastructure necessary to maintain the day-to-day IT operations and communications that interface with the public for EPA’s mission and activities in support of protecting human health and the environment? . For example, under this task order the vendor releases approximately 30 advisories and approximately 100 threat alerts each month. By not extending this support service, these advisories and alerts will not be evaluated for impact to EPA network and mitigations implemented. This will leave the network vulnerable to security threats increasing the likelihood of network compromise thus endangering the confidentiality, integrity and access to EPA mission-critical data. There will be no adds, changes or deletes to network configuration increasing the likelihood of servers going down and no additions to support critical applications. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: If you are saying that these services are highly specialized, then you should explain how. You could maybe say something along the lines of that they require specialized expertise on a highly complex, specialized system? Please confer with the program for the appropriate language. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: Please identify what IT stands for. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: Please explain what could happen if there was a break in or disruption to services with respect to EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. |
| Awarding a contract to another vendor for this extension would greatly impact transition activities as transition activities are a critical component and require detailed knowledge transfer. A new vendor could not successfully transition the services under Task Order #0056 to the follow-on contracts as there would be not enough time to obtain a learning curve in the short time frame needed. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: It would be helpful if you could explain what transition activities are for the purposes of this work and how long transition would take. Also, it may make more sense to move this paragraph towards the end of section 4. | ||
| CGI is the only one source capable of providing the highly specialized services required at the level of quality required for the duration of this extension because they are the incumbent contractor with close, up-to-date familiarity with a large amount of varied complex components in the overall EPA Network and Security Operations environment. This includes familiarity of the Agency’s network routers, switches, firewalls and supporting infrastructure. Also, CGI has been the supporting contractor under Task Order #0056 since 2010 and has the detailed knowledge regarding the reasoning behind specific configurations, workflow and operational procedures. No other source has this close, up-to-date familiarity to provide these highly specialized services without a break in or disruption to mission-critical functions? | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: Please remember that the purpose of this section is to provide a reasonable explanation as to why CGI is the only one source. I’ve tried to add in language, but please confer with the program and modify as appropriate. | ||
| Since Task Order #0056 expires March 31, 2017, there is insufficient time to award a new contract vehicle for this required extension. The Agency’s procurement lead time to award a contract between $1M and $10M is 240 days. This timeframe includes time for market research, drafting an RFQ to solicit vendor quotes, respond to RFQ questions, evaluate quotes, and award a contract. Additional time may also be needed for transition of services from the old vendor to the new vendor. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: Presumably you have already conducted market research, as indicated later in section 6. | Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: Given that 2 paragraphs above, you mentioned the importance of transition activities, I would expect that additional time would (not “may”) be needed for transition if there is a new vendor. Please re-word to clarify. |
5. A determination by the contracting officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d).
Task order #0056 was issued under the ITS-EPA II BPAs which are all under the vendor’s GSA Schedule 70 contract. A price evaluation was conducted on this task order to determine if the proposed price, level of effort and the mix of labor were fair and reasonable. The task order award resulted in the best value to meet the Government’s needs. For this extension, it is EPA’s intention to utilize the prices already set forth in the current Network and Security Operations task order #0056 which have already been discounted, compared to the Independent Government Cost Estimate, competed and determined fair and reasonable. Comment by Zemel, Avital: This paragraph needs to be focused on why this particular task order (not a group of task orders) represents the best value to the Government consistent with FAR 8.404(d). Comment by Hart, Laconda: Revised to focus on this order Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/16/17: This sentence is still confusing to me. CGI does not hold a number of BPAs, which is what this sentence implies. Please clarify. Comment by Zemel, Avital: Do these prices have discounts? See FAR 8.404(d). Also, did the Government develop an independent government cost estimate to validate that this order represents the best value? Comment by Hart, Laconda: Updated to include discounts and IGCE info
6. A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results.
As mentioned above, the task order that will support this work was awarded competitively under the ITS-EPA II BPAs and GSA Schedule 70. Market research was conducted prior to award of the BPAs to include review of the previous award information, reviewing GSA’s website for FSS contractors with contracts under Schedule 70 and SIN numbers 132.51. Additional market research was conducted for this extension to address if any other ITS-EPA II BPA holder could meet the requirements of this extension. It was concluded that CGI was the only vendor capable of providing the required extension services in the time period required. Since the current order expires March 31, 2017, adequate time is not available to place a new award. It was also concluded that extending this order will ensure there is not a disruption to the vital services required, as there is not enough time for a new vendor to provide a seamless transition and achieve the learning curve. Further, the associated costs for a new contractor to “start up” this project versus maintaining the existing structure of the incumbent contractor (such as the contractor’s associated costs for obtaining the necessary personnel and providing these services) would not be cost beneficial to the EPA. Therefore, the existing contractor CGI has over six years’ experience in providing these services to EPA and the current resources available to provide the task without interruption or additional costs. Comment by Zemel, Avital: This is an inadequate description of the market research that took place. This paragraph does not adequately explain when market research took place, what the market research consisted of, and what were the results of the market research. It also implies that, contrary to the rationale for this limited sources justification, there is only one source that could do this work, that any of seven vendors might be interested in the work and could potentially do the work. Please clarify what the “additional market research” was and what was the basis of the determination that other vendors could not do the work. This description should demonstrate that EPA considered the other vendors and whether or not they could meet the Agency’s needs Comment by Hart, Laconda: This was updated to address your concerns Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/16/17: When? Do you have a date? Please make sure that you have documentation of the market research, as this is information that will be necessary to have on hand to provide to GAO/COFC if there is a protest. Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/16/17: When? Do you have a date? What was the market research, and do you have documentation of this? This is information that will be necessary to have on hand to provide to GAO/COFC if there is a protest. Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: My assumption here is that the other BPA holders may have been able to do the work, but not within the time frame needed? I still continue to note as a risk that there arguably could have been a lack of advance planning here, although arguably also, the prohibition against a lack of advance planning is relevant to FAR Part 6 JOFOCs and not mentioned in FAR 8.4 with regard to Limited-Sources Justifications. Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: If you are going to make this type of statement regarding costs, you will need to have back-up cost calculations to support that having a new contractor would not be cost beneficial. Otherwise, this is a conclusory statement.
7. Any other facts supporting the justification.
None
8. A statement of any actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required.
As mentioned in #2 above, the Agency intends to award follow-on contracts for the services included under Task Order#0056. Both awards will be competitive. Comment by Zemel, Avital: 3/15/17: The word “both” implies that there will be two contracts. I am not clear that OAM has determined its acquisition strategy sufficiently that we know whether this is accurate. Maybe you can just insert “competitive” in front of “follow-on”?
9. The ordering activity contracting officer's certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer's knowledge and belief.
The Contracting Officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of the Contracting Officer’s knowledge and belief as noted by the Contracting Officer’s signature below.
10. 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 limited sources) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.
The Project Officer certifies that this justification is complete and accurate by signature below.
Project Officer Certification
| “signed by Cherie Saliby-Puszynski, OEI OITO” | 2/28/2017 | ||
| ______________________________________________ | __________________ | ||
| Cherie Saliby-Puszynski | Date |
OEI, OITO
Contracting Officer Certification
| “signed by Laconda Hart, Contracting Officer” | 2/28/2017 | ||
| ______________________________________________ | __________________ | ||
| Laconda Hart | Date |
Contracting Officer, OEI Team, OARMSC, RTP Procurement Operations Division
| “signed by Joel P. Smith, OEI Team Leader” | 3/1/2017 | ||
| _____________________________________________ | __________________ | ||
| Joel P. Smith | Date |
Contracting Officer, OEI Team Leader, OARMSC, RTP Procurement Operations Division
REVIEW:
| “signed by Lauranne M. Vogel, Service Center Manager” | 3/22/2017 | |
| _______________________________________________ | __________________ | |
| Lauranne M. Vogel | Date |
OARM Service Center Manager
APPROVED:
| “signed by Denise Clark, Acting Competition Advocate” | 3/28/2017 | ||
| ________________________________________________ | __________________ | ||
| Denise Clark | Date |
Competition Advocate, OAM
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .