Limited_Sources_Justification_-_Wells_G H_-_Posting-1.doc

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LIMITED SOURCES JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

I. Contracting Activity Fully identify the contracting activity responsible for the proposed contracting action. Include the name/phone number of the Contracting Officer. Specifically identify as a “Limited Sources” Justification. Identify purchase request number, if applicable.

(Class or Individual)

I certify that the data supporting the recommended use of other than full and open competition for the acquisition of these information technology resources is complete and accurate.

OAM/SRRPOD

09/07/2014

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

OAM/SRRPOD

09/07/2014

(Name)

(Office Symbol)

Date Signed

*(If order is above Competition Advocate approval threshold, insert title of appropriate approval authority.

II. Nature and/or Description of the Action Being Processed State whether the action is a new order or by modification to an existing order. Identify the GSA schedule number, the Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) number, the order number for the current action, and the Contactor(s). Indicate the Period of Performance (PoP). Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g. Firm Fixed Price, Labor Hour, etc).

The name of the action is "Remedial Design/ Remedial Action Oversight – Wildwood Source Area Property, Wells G&H OU 1 Superfund Site AND Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study Oversight – Southwest Properties, Wells G&H OU2 Superfund Site." It is for environemtal services pertaining to CERCLA/Superfund work at the Wells G&H Superfund Site, located in Woburn, MA. The action to be processed is a new Task Order using GSA Schedule No. 899.8 (Environmental Services, Remediation and Reclamation Services). The contractor is TRC Environmental Corporation, GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0401M. The Period of Performance is from February 2015 (expected date of issuance) through February 2020. This is a Time-and-Materials task order to be issued under GSA Schedule.

III. Description of the Supplies/Services Required To Meet the Agency’s Needs Specifically describe the supplies and/or services to be acquired including the price and quantity of each item in the order and state the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether the services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. Also state the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order.

The services to be acquired are Environmental Services for oversight of work performed by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at the Wells G&H Superfund Site Operable Unit (OU) 1 - Wildwood Source Area Property and Operable Unit 2 - Southwest Properties. The PRP work at OU 1 is Remedial Action and the PRP work at OU 2 is Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. In general, the contractor will provide services for Community Involvement Support, Field Oversight, Reuse Planning, Document Review, and Technical Meeting Support. The attached Statement of Work provides additional details about the oversight work to be performed by the contractor. The total estimated value of the order is $543,253.80. The Period of Performance is from February 2015 (expected date of issuance) through February 2020.

IV. Identification of the Justification/Rationale for Limiting Sources and Demonstration of the Contractor’s Unique Qualifications to Provide the Required Supply/Service This section is normally the most detailed part of the justification. To assist you in preparing this justification, an introductory sentence and the four circumstances of FAR 8.405-6 that justify restricting the number of schedule holders, are provided below. Select the appropriate cite, then provide, in narrative form, a detailed explanation supporting the specific circumstance cited for limiting the number of schedule holders.

(Introductory sentence): FAR 8.405-6 requires an ordering activity to justify its actions when restricting consideration of schedule contractors to fewer than required in FAR 8.405-1 or 8.405-. The specific circumstance that justifies restriction for this acquisition is FAR 8.405-6 (b) ( ) (Insert (1), (2), (3), or FAR 8.405-6(a) (2), as applicable).

After selecting the appropriate cite, next select one of the four sentences below and provide a detailed explanation supporting the specific circumstance cited.

FAR 8.405-6 (b) (1), “Only one source is capable of responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work”. (Provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable) FAR 8.405-6 (b)(2), “The new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures.” The original order was not issued under sole source or limited source procedures. (Provide details on the previously competed order and explain how this order is a logical follow-on to that order. Explain fully the connection between the previous work/order and the current one. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. General statements are not acceptable) FAR 8.405-6 (b)(3), “An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays” (Provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the schedule impact if time were to be taken to follow FSS ordering procedures. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable) FAR 8.405-6 (a) (2), “The item is peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer”.

(Brand name specifications should not be used unless the particular brand name, product or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements. Therefore, explain why the particular brand item is essential to the Government’s requirements, and why other companies’ similar items, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s need. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. General statements are not acceptable)

FAR 8.405-6(b)(1): The contractor has specialized experience related to serving as a hydrological expert for the Wells G&H project and providing litigation support to EPA/DOJ as an expert witness. Prior to the contractor's involvment with the site, EPA Region 1 was having significant difficulty with the settling defendants in terms of them fullfilling obligations under the Consent Decree and achieving any cleanup progress at the Site, which has a highly contentious history. The contractor's expertise in the technical arena and cability of serving as expert witness for this Site has helped EPA Region 1 to skillfully define the Government's technical and legal positions and finally achieve progress with cleanup obligations after previous stalemates for Operable Unit 2. Specifically, the contractor's hydrological expertise and ability to serve as expert witness is extensive considering the long and complex site history, and this specialized knowledge is instrumental to the Region's continued progress towards a future cleanup plan and/or settlement/litigation.

FAR 8.4015-6(b)(3): The contractor's continued support as hydrological expert and, as necessary, litigation expert witness, is urgent to EPA Region 1 fullfilling its commitment to establish a proposed cleanup plan for the Southwest Properties, Operable Unit 2, by Fiscal Year 2015. EPA Region 1 announced and committed to this schedule earlier in the year to the public, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), and EPA HQ. Potential impacts include prolonged unacceptable delays to the project, additional costs to the government associated with the delays, failing to meet FY2015 commitments to EPA HQ, the community and the public, and the PRPs, and significant disruption to the settlement (or litigation) endeavor which has been precarious, but finally progressing through the contractor's efforts after repeated hold-ups. A delay in support for this project could also potentially allow PRPs to shift blame to the EPA for schedule delays, which would adversely affect progress at the Site and harm the Government's interests. Therefore, it is imperative that there be as few schedule delays as possible with future support at the Site.

FAR 8.405-6 requires an ordering activties to justify its actions when restricting consideration of schedule contractors to fewer than required in FAR 8.405-1 or FAR 8.405-2. The specific circumstance that justifies restriction for this acquistion is FAR 8.405-6 (b) (1). FAR 8.405-6 (b) (1), "Only one source is capable of responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work."

EPA requires a contractor with the following qualifications to provide immediate support for contentious and technically complex work at the Wells G&H Superfund Site:

- Contractor must be technically proficient in providing oversight of groundwater remediation operations and must be technically proficient in oversight of RI/FS activities, including field investigation, sampling, and identification and evaluation of remedial alternatives.

- Contractor must have expertise in hydrology, human health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and contaminant fate and transport with enough superior technical expertise to allow them to serve as an expert witness, if necessary.

- Contractor must fully understand the historical and current contaminant conditions at the Site (each Source Area Property, the Southwest Properties, and the Central Area) in order to provide expert witness support and deal with the highly contentious nature of the Site history.

- Contractor must be able to immediately provide an integrated understanding of contaminant and hydrological conditions at the entire Wells G&H Superfund Site in order to keep current settlement and/or litigation efforts progressing.

TRC Environmental has a 15+-year history of providing environmental services at the Wells G&H Superfund Site (under EPA Region 1 RACS and RACS2 contracts, initially as a subcontractor under Metcalf & Eddy/AECOM). They have repeatedly demonstrated their superior knowledge of the historical and current contamination at the Site. Because of their history of working at the Site, they are able to immediately provide support to EPA, with no start-up or background information review effort. They have technical expertise in performing and overseeing RI/FS and RA work, as well as expertise and experience to serve as an expert witness.

The schedule impact of getting another contractor up to speed to sufficiently support EPA is significantly high due to the incredible volume of Site information and its technical complexity. A conservative estimate regarding the time that it would take another contractor to come up to speed is 6 to 9 months. This delay in support would adversely affect progress at the Site and would potentially allow the PRPs to shift blame to EPA for schedule delays, which is not in the best interest of the government.

V. Determination by the Ordering Activity Contracting Officer that the Order Represents the Best Value Consistent with FAR 8.404(d) This section needs to be tailored based upon whether the order is for supplies/services not requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-1) or if the order is for services requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-2).

For FAR 8.405-1 orders the best value determination needs to be based upon the supply or service offered under MAS contracts by surveying at least three schedule contractors through the GSA Advantage! On-line shopping service or by reviewing the catalogs or pricelists of at least three schedule contractors. The ordering Contracting Officer’s review of the Contractor’s pricelist(s) and any price reductions sought is also required. (Contracting Officer should seek additional price discounts/concessions based on the specific order requirements on all orders over the micro-purchase threshold). In addition to price, when determining best value, the ordering activity may consider, among other factors, past performance, special features of the supply or service required for effective program performance, trade-in considerations, probable life of the item selected as compared with that of a comparable item, warranty considerations, maintenance availability, environmental and energy efficiency considerations, and delivery terms.

When an order contains brand name specifications, the Contracting Officer shall post the Request for Quote (RFQ) along with the basis of the justification as required by FAR 8.405-6 (post ONLY the basis of the justification, do NOT post the actual Justification and Approval document).

For FAR 8.405-2 orders for services requiring a statement of work, FAR 8.405-2(d) requires that a price evaluation be performed .Therefore, the justification must address how the FAR 8.404(d) requirement for an evaluation of the proposed level of effort and mix of labor will be conducted and include a statement that the Contracting Officer will perform a price reasonableness determination as part of the best value determination.

The CO has determined the price afforded via the contractor's GSA Schedule to be fair and reasonable and the best value to the Government.

VI. Description of the Market Research Conducted Among Schedule Holders and the Results Or a Statement of the Reason Market Research Was Not Conducted Discuss market research that was conducted among schedule holders and the market research results that led to the conclusion to go sole source or to limit the number of schedule holders to be solicited. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of 8.405-1 or 8.405-2. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale.

While market research was not conducted, the universe of contractors with experience supporting EPA at the Wells G&H Superfund Site is well-known. Since 1988, when regionally-managed contracts were established for supporting Superfund work, there have only been two contractors (Metcalf & Eddy and TRC Environmental) who have ever worked for EPA at the Wells G&H Superfund Site. Metcalf & Eddy has a Conflict of Interest issue regarding the work to be performed under this order. Therefore, they cannnot be considered for award. Only TRC Environmental, who meets the criteria outlined in Section IV above) remains as a viable candidate for award and would provide least disruption to the schedule requirements at this Site. Any other contractor would require 6-9 months to review thousands of documents to come up to speed, and would result in a failure to meet the schedule for the FY 2015 proposed clean up plan that announced to the public, EPA HQ, PRPs, etc.

VII. Other Facts Supporting the Justification When FAR 8.405-6(b)(2) is cited for an follow-on acquisition as the basis for the justification, include an estimate of the cost that would be duplicated and the basis and derivation of the estimate, or provide details on why a delay to solicit additional schedule holders would be unacceptable.

Provide any other facts supporting the Limited Sources Justification.

VIII. Actions 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

Describe all efforts to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that preclude the agency from meeting the requirements of FAR 8.405-1, FAR 8.405-2 before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.

This type of oversight support is typically performed under EPA Region 1's RAC2 contract, which was awarded competitively. However, due to a Conflict of Interest issue with the Prime Contractor originally assigned the work to be performed under this order, EPA must find another mechanism to have this work performed. This situation is isolated and rarely occurs.

IX. Contracting Officer’s Certification The contracting officer’s signature on the signature page evidences that he/she has determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

X. Technical/Requirements Personnel’s Certification As evidenced by their signatures on the signature page, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein which is their responsibility is both accurate and complete.