Redacted_Approved_JOFOC.docx

Limited-Sources Justification – Multiple Award Schedules

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity: US Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, Administrative Contract Service Center.

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

This requirement is for a logical follow-on to an existing GSA task order which was competed using full and open competition ordering procedures.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the Agency’s needs (including the estimated value).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires labor services support for its Headquarters facilities in the Washington, D.C. metro area and warehouse environment to move federal property, assist with an inventory, and to pack a truck with EPA property that shall be delivered to the GSA Surplus warehouse. Performance of this requirement requires skilled labor support qualified to operate material handling equipment. The estimated value of this requirement is [REDACTED] including the base and all option periods.

4. An identification of the statutory authority and supporting rationale to provide the required supply or service. The authority for this procurement is FAR 8.4 and the Multiple Award Schedule program and subsequently 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) “In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order.” The rationale that supports this authority is:

This is an interim order for warehouse support services in order to allow continuity of services while a long-term contract is placed for these services. Previously, it was anticipated that the interim order would not be required for more than 6 months. However, due to the nature of the competition, it has been determined that an additional interim performance period is required until the new contract is in place. Per the requirements of FAR 8.405-6, the original interim order was placed in accordance with the applicable FSS ordering procedures, and the original order was not previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures. The original order was issued to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable vendor under the GSA Schedules. Fair and reasonable pricing was pre-determined per FAR 8.404. It is in the best interest of the government in terms of both economy and efficiency to award a logical follow-on to the same vendor, as the pricing was the lowest received at the time of competition. Furthermore, a new competition would require unnecessary administrative effort by the placement contracting officer which could be avoided by use of the logical follow-on procedures, as this is merely an interim order until a long-term contract is placed. Additionally the current vendor’s performance has been satisfactory or better, and they maintain an active contract on the GSA schedules.

5. A determination by the contracting officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d).

The previous order was competed using full and open competition. The vendor was determined to be technically capable and provided the lowest price quote among several companies. The vendor has continued to perform satisfactorily or better. The vendor continues to have an active GSA contract, with prices already determined to be fair and reasonable. Thus, this logical follow-on represents the best value.

6. A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

Market research was not conducted as this is a logical follow-on to an existing order.

7. Any other facts supporting the justification:

N/A

8. A statement of the actions, if any, the Agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made.

There will not be another limited sources order placed for this requirement. Only full and open competition will be utilized.

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

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.