Justification_for_an_Exception_to_Fair_Opportunity.docx

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(D) – Satisfy a Minimum Guarantee

(1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity:

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Acquisition Management Cincinnati Procurement Operations Division (CPOD)

(2) Nature and/or description of the action:

The purpose of this action is support for the Cayuga Lake Modeling Evaluation Group (MEG) for Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

(3) Description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value):

Cayuga Lake is one the larger Finger Lakes, located in central New York State. The southern end of the Lake is listed on the NY State 303(d) List for an impairment of recreation, due to elevated levels of the nutrient phosphorus. As such, the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in early 2013 began development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for phosphorus for this segment. The TMDL effort is being funded as a cooperative venture by Cornell University and NYSDEC and the TMDL is scheduled to be completed by September 2017. Under the proposed effort, t he contractor shall establish and maintain a Modeling Evaluation Group (MEG). The responsibility of the MEG will be to conduct independent and scientific/technical review of all the Lake and watershed simulation models used to develop the TMDL. The contractor shall also collect and analyze one sediment core sample to support paleoecological inference modeling.

(4) Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited:

As allowed under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D), this order must be issued on a sole-source basis to satisfy the minimum guarantee of the contract with Abt Associates, EP-C-12-051.

(5) A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

The Contracting Officer and the Program Office anticipate that the cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable. CPOD and the Program Office will review the cost submission that the contractor will submit in response to the Task Order Solicitation. These costs will be compared to the IGCE. A cost realism analysis will also be performed.

(6) Any other facts supporting the justification: N/A

(7) A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take 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:

This Task Order will satisfy the minimum guarantee for this contract for the TSAWP contract, thereby removing the need for any similar such action in the future under this contract for this contractor.

(8) The justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

(9) Any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel as demonstrated by his signature below.

(10) The contracting officer is the approving official for this action and has determined that (b)(2)(i)(D) of FAR 16.505 applies to the order.

Technical Officer’s Certification & Concurrence I certify that the facts and representations stated in this justification are complete and accurate which form the basis to award this requirement.

__________/signed/_______________________ Antony Tseng Technical Officer

Contracting Officer’s Certification & Approval I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

__________/signed/_______________________ 7/15/2013 Noelle Mills Contracting Officer