SATOPS Bridge fair_opportunity_exception_justification 7.Aug _Redacted.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 5 agreements.

(4) Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale:

Although SATOPS II was originally on track to be awarded before 1 August 2025, during the acquisition process for the follow-on service contract, significant delays in the Requirements Approval Document (RAD) approval process and assurance of funds brought on by the mission parter. Furthermore, the new Executive Orders, specifically "Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracting", has added the requirement for a non-commercial determination to be made, which is pending approval at this time. Additionally, the RAD approval process was altered, requiring any new acquisitions not already awarded that require a RAD to be re-routed with a requirement for additional information and additional reviewers. For those reasons, we are justifying the exception FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A), as delays would affect communication of MILSATCOM to the President, Secretary of Defense, national decision makers, theater commanders, and strategic and tactical forces worldwide to include International Partners.

(5) Contracting Officer's determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

Services offered on a GSA schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at a fixed price for performance of a specific task. GSA has already determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable. However, in accordance with DoD Class Deviation 2014-O0011, the ordering activity contracting officer will utilize the proposal analysis techniques under 15.404-1 to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

The Government conducted market research for the follow-on award that was delayed as described above. Additional market research was not conducted. The current market research report identified there are no other existing contract vehicles which would afford for competitive acquisition in the timeframe necessary.

Competing this requirement would create an ineffective operational end-state and incur non-recoverable costs to support the short-term period of performance. The Government would then have to pay for these same costs when the current competitive procurement is awarded and begins. There is no expectation that a competitive procurement for this bridge action would result in a substantially lower price to trade-off the cost for better performance when STI-Tec is meeting the Government's requirements.

(7) Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to increasing fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services:

There are no other actions planned to remove or overcome any barriers. A follow-on for this requirement is being competed on the General Services Acquisition (GSA) One Acquisition Solution Integrated Services (OASIS+) Small Business (SB) Indefinite- Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Contract vehicle, and the revised milestones indicate award and transition prior to the expiration of this bridge contract.

(8) Program Manager's certification that supporting data is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

(9) Contracting Officer's certification that the justification is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 5

Instructions for Completing the Template IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)

(2) State whether the action is a new order or a modification to an existing order. Identify the basic multiple award contract number and the order number for the current action. Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g., Firm Fixed price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.).

(3) Specifically describe the supplies/services to be acquired including the price/cost and quantity of each item in the order and the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. State the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order. Explain how the requirement/order fits under the scope of the basic multiple award contracts.

(Note: The Contracting Officer must ensure that the order is issued within the period of performance and within the maximum value of the contract).

(4) Include the appropriate exception from FAR 16.505 (b)(2) and the supporting rationale. FAR16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(__) [Insert A,B, C, D, or E]. If a brand name product description is being justified, use this section to explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and why other companies' similar products/services do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A): “The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the mission impact if awarded to any other contractor. 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 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B): “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. When using this exception 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.

Supporting documentation may be attached to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C): “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order”. When using this exception provide information on the previously competed order under this contract and detail the economies and efficiencies that will be obtained by going sole source for the follow-on order. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D): “It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.”

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E): “For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.”

Discuss the market research that was conducted by the user/technical team/contracting officer among the supplies/services of all awardees that resulted in the conclusion that a fair opportunity exception applied. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS 216.505-70 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale. If any other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the requirement, but was not considered a potential source, explain why that awardee cannot provide the required supplies/perform the service.

v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 5v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 5

If the use of a brand name purchase description is being justified, the market research should include an analysis of any industry proposed alternative products or approaches to meeting the requirements. Additionally, the Government's efforts to identify as many potential sources as practicable offering the required brand name item(s) should be addressed.

(5) This paragraph needs to be tailored based on the types of CLINs in the order and the pricing arrangements on the basic multiple award contract. If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the Contracting Officer must establish prices for each order IAW FAR 15.4. The paragraph needs to describe the steps that will ensure that the prices/estimated cost of the order will be fair and reasonable. For example, even if firm-fixed prices were obtained under adequate price competition in the award of the multiple award contract, the Contracting Officer still needs to consider market conditions and other factors that may have changed since contract award and explain the basis in the determination that prices/costs are fair and reasonable prior to award of the order.

(6) Provide any other facts supporting the use of exceptions to the fair opportunity process.

(7) Include a statement of the actions, if any, to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.