AnD_Sole_Source_Justification_Final.docx

Contracting Without Full and Open Competition Justification and Approvals (Reference FAR 6.303-2)

1. Agency: EPA National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan Contracting Activity: EPA Cincinnati Procurement Operations Division Requisition No.: PR-OAR-16-00009 Contractor: A&D Technology, Inc., 4622 Runway Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48108

2. Nature and/or description of the action: The Cincinnati Procurement Operations Division intends to award a follow-on contract on a sole source basis to A&D Technology, Inc (A&D) for the services described in Paragraph 3.

3. Description of the Supplies or Services: The contractor shall provide high-level expertise in maintaining, repairing, supporting, and upgrading A&D-supplied vehicle and engine emission test equipment and associated components, and provide training related to that equipment and components (as needed). A list of the A&D-supplied equipment that is included on the proposed contract is attached.

Estimated value: The total maximum value is estimated to be $2,000,314.00.

4. Authority:

6. Describe the efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable: This requirement was synopsized in FedBizOpps and Fed Connect on November 17, 2015. The synopsis stated the EPA’s intent to award a sole source contract to A&D Technology, Inc. No other vendors provided capabilities statements by the end date of the posting period.

7. The contracting officer determines that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable because a complete analysis of all costs using audits, commerciality, previous history, or other appropriate means will be fully utilized prior to award.

8. Description of the market research conducted (see FAR Part 10). If no market research was conducted, state the reasons: A&D software and hardware are proprietary products, controlled by A&D proprietary software. Market research did not reveal another source capable of configuring, maintaining, servicing, or performing upgrades on A&D supplied software and hardware. Recent discussions with A&D’s major competitors (Horiba Instruments & AVL Test Systems) in the emissions testing market lead to the conclusion that competition takes place at the system’s sales level. Due to proprietary hardware and software, and the level of specialized training required to stay current with service needs, each manufacturer of emissions equipment operates with a strategy that only it can maintain its own products. Internet searches for third-party candidates able to provide products and service for A&D systems was also unsuccessful. There are other data acquisition and data control products on the market, but this would entail replacing the entire system. Given that any “new” system would also be proprietarily controlled, the program office would find itself in the same situation.

9. Other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition.

None

10. List sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition. If no sources expressed an interest in writing, indicate such. No other sources have expressed an interest in the acquisition.

11. Include a statement of the actions, if any, the Agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is required. This follow on contract is to continue repair and upgrades to existing A&D-supplied and MTS–supplied (MTS is now owned by A&D) equipment. Procurements for completely new test control or combustion analytical equipment would not face any barriers to competition, but subsequent follow-on contracts would end up being sole-source based on the proprietary nature of this soft-ware and hard-ware associated with the new equipment.

Technical Officer’s Certification

I certify that the facts and representations stated in this justification are complete and accurate which form the basis to award this requirement.

Michelle B. Houston Signature of Technical Officer Printed name of Technical Officer Date: 1-20-2016

Review and Approvals:

Reviewed By:

Contracting Officer’s Certification:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Angela Lower Signature of Contracting Officer Printed Name Date: 1/21/2016

Reviewed by: Service Center Manager

David Hincks Signature Printed Name

Date: 1/21/2016

Reviewed by: CPOD Division Director

Pamela D Legare Signature Printed Name

Date: 2/3/2016

Approval: Competition Advocate

Susan Moroni Signature Printed Name

Date: 2/5/2016