REDACTED CONSOLIDATION MEMO (2).pdf

CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION

Piney Woods Region, Sam Rayburn and Town Bluff Lakes Maintenance

Construction Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) Solicitation No.

W9126G23R0086

(As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

RATIONALE

1. Consolidation may provide substantial benefits to the Government. However, because of the potential impact on small business participation, before conducting an acquisition that is a consolidation of requirements with an estimated total dollar value exceeding $2 million, a written determination shall be made that the consolidation is necessary and justified in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 657q, after ensuring that--

(a) Market research has been conducted;

(b) Any alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation have been identified;

(c) The determination is coordinated with the agency's Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization or the Office of Small Business Programs;

(d) Any negative impact by the acquisition strategy on contracting with small business concerns has been identified; and

(e) Steps are taken to include small business concerns in the acquisition strategy.

2. Introduction: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District (SWF) plans to solicit offers for $20M capacity acquisition requirement for a firm fixed price Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) including base year of performance and four (4) fixed price option years for various Maintenance Construction at Sam Rayburn Lake, Jasper Texas, Town Bluff Lake, Woodville Texas under North American Identity Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 – Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, with a small business size standard of $45M and has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this procurement to be both necessary and justified.

FAR 2.102 defines consolidation as:

(1) a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy-

(i) two or more requirements of the Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers are solicited; or

(ii) requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites;

or;

(2) separate contract as used in this definition, means a contract that has been performed by any business, including small and other than small business concerns.

3. Description of the Procurement Action: The work includes, but is not limited to, operation and maintenance campsite maintenance, carpentry, minor painting, roadwork, plumbing, electrical, civil engineer services, sign maintenance, and fencing for facilities at Sam Rayburn Lake and Town Bluff Lake, Texas. The firm fixed priced SATOC includes base year of performance and four (4) fixed price option years. This contract duration has been determined to be the most appropriate course of action in order to ensure continuity of services, to avoid increased

b. Market Research Analysis It is believed based upon the information gathered from DSBS that a Set-Aside for Small Business would be appropriate for this solicitation. There is an abundance of capable firms in this area. There is an opportunity to award to a business that qualifies under multiple socio-economic designations, which would greatly benefit the Small Business objectives of this organization.

c. Impacts of Consolidation on Small Business: This requirement will be solicited as a total small business set-aside. The SATOC award will be made to a small business contractor which assists the USACE in reaching the FY23 small business goal.

5. Alternative Contracting Approaches and Rationale for Rejection:

a. Alternative 1: Limited Consolidation-An alternative contracting approach considered is to procure this requirement via two (2) geographically aligned SATOCs based on location of the park/lake. The following factors were taken into consideration when analyzing this alternative.

(i) Quality. The following disadvantages were identified, related to quality, in selecting this alternative.

Due to the location of these area lakes, there may be less competition at less desirable locations, resulting in lower quality work, or no work at all. While this approach may increase competition at Sam Rayburn Lake, the variation in consistent quality is a disadvantage due to a larger number of possible firms for numerous stand-alone contracts. Additionally, this method of contracting would also increase the need for Government surveillance and oversight to monitor two (2) individual firms.

(ii) Acquisition Cycle. The Government does not have the ability to delay award of these mission-critical projects while it processes the requirement through site specific contract acquisition cycles. The two (2) referenced lakes are available to the public throughout the entire year and cannot afford to have a lapse in any of the work that is being procured via this SATOC. Additionally, longer lead times to award stand-alone contracts will more than triple and have a negative mission impact. Current acquisition lead times for stand-alone 8(a) contracts are 60 – 90 days. The lead time to issue a task order is only 14 days. According to the SWF Billable Rate Summary, each stand-alone contract could cost up to in CT labor alone, while task orders cost only . In addition to overall cost savings associated with billable labor, SWF would also realize cost savings due to economies of scale over the lifetime of the SATOC. Moreover, should critical maintenance services arise, a task order would rapidly fill the need as opposed to issuing one or more individual contracts to cover the same maintenance.

(iii) Cost. Cost savings realized by executing a SATOC would be reduced by procurement and administration of individual site-specific contracts. As noted above, the cost to acquire these services through individual contract vehicles is greatly reduced by issuance of a SATOC.

Likewise, the administrative burden for contract oversight would be reduced as one COR could be utilized for all services rather than multiple to cover stand-alone contracts.

(iv) Terms and Conditions. It is not anticipated that the Government will secure better terms or conditions by selecting this alternative.

(v) Other Benefits. Improved activities and less oversight.

(vi) Conclusion: This alternative is not in the best interest of the Government considering the cost and time involved in awarding stand-alone, site-specific contracts, this alternative is not feasible.

b. Alternative 2: No Consolidation-A second alternative contracting approach considered is to procure this requirement via as many as 50 individual contracts at multiple locations. SWF has a long-standing history of awarding FFP service contracts using the 8(a) program. When taking into account the magnitude of this consolidation, this alternative would likely lead to greater variations in quality of services which would require additional oversight. The following factors were taken into consideration when analyzing this alternative.

(i) Quality. This approach may provide several benefits such as more opportunities for firms to compete to provide activities, and at a more competitive price. However, the disadvantages greatly outweigh the benefits. Given the nature of these activities, a large number of inexperienced firms may see this as opportunity to participate because of the low dollar value. The PWS provides for 8 separates, though closely related tasks, at two (2) geographically separated locations. Awarding over 50 contracts for these services may provide a high degree of variation in the quality of services received. While this may approach may increase competition, it will also increase the need for Government surveillance and oversight to monitor these inexperienced firms.

(ii) Acquisition Cycle. The Government does not have the ability to delay award of this SATOC while it processes the requirement through the site-specific contract acquisition cycle. Because these activities are so closely related there is the real possibility that one contractor will receive multiple awards, which defeats the purpose of awarding separate contracts to increase competition. This alternative would also cause longer lead times to award each stand-alone contract and can have a negative impact the mission.

Current acquisition lead times for an 8(a) sole-source contract is 60 – 90 days. Contracts awarded using Simplified Acquisition Procedures take 45 to 90 days for award. Task orders only take 14 days to award which results in greater efficiencies across the PDT.

(iii) Cost. Any cost savings realized by executing site specific contracts would be reduced by procurement and administration of individual site-specific contracts. According to the SWF Billable Rate Summary, each stand-alone contract could cost up to in CT labor alone, while task orders cost only . In addition to overall cost savings associated with billable labor, SWF would also realize cost savings due to economies of scale over the lifetime of the SATOC. Moreover, should critical maintenance services arise, a task order would rapidly fill the need as opposed to issuing one or more individual contracts to cover the same maintenance.

(iv) Terms and Conditions. It is not anticipated that the Government will secure better terms or conditions by selecting this alternative.

(v) Other Benefits. Improved activities and less oversight.

(vi) Conclusion. This alternative is not in the best interest of the Government considering the cost and time involved in awarding stand-alone, site-specific contracts, this alternative is not feasible.

6. Consolidation Benefit Analysis: The benefits of consolidation are listed in the table below:

Alternative Advantages

Limited Consolidation Solicit and Award two (2) separate SATOCs

Separating requirements by geographical locations may result in increased competition at the more desirable locations.

No Consolidation Solicit and award over 50 stand-alone, site-specific contracts

More opportunities for firms to compete to provide activities, and at a more competitive price

7. Considerations, Facts, Reasoning Supporting the Determination: All facts, considerations and rationale have been covered previously in the findings. The DD2579 has been reviewed by the Contracting