SP470424F0041_Redacted.pdf

CUI

CUI SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Timeline: Period of performance is from 02 May 2025 – 01 May 2026.

o Accenture Federal Services (AFS) is needed to continue to facilitate and drive objective and key result execution and the critical Agency Transformation Summit (ATS) occurring from May 20 – 22, 2025. With the committed timeline, there is no other option for alternative contractors. Furthermore, they have been supporting DLA for the past year developing and executing Agency-wide environmental scans, facilitating numerous senior leaders working sessions and senior leader summits, which drove the creation of the DLA Strategic Plan 2025-2030, which are key inputs to the May 20 – 22, 2025 ATS.

Scope of Additional Services:

o Objective 1 Perform Environmental Scan / Conduct Stakeholder Interviews and Analysis:

Execute the logical follow-on to the agency’s FY26 environmental scan by conducting an FY27 environmental scan, consisting of: conducting interviews, analyzing defense trends and best practices, and evaluating DLA’s strategy objectives and key results. DLA seeks consistency with the engagement of senior leaders, and AFS provides that consistency and continuity.

o Objective 2 Facilitate Senior Forums: Continue to design, develop, and facilitate the in-flight preparation for the senior leader forums and the ATS, which is from May 20 – 22, 2025.

With the given timeline, there is no time to onboard a new contractor to risk delivery of the ATS and the Agency Annual Guidance.

o Objective 3 Draft Strategic Plan: Execute the logical follow-on to the published DLA

Strategic Plan 2025 – 2030, which requires contractor to synthesize the FY26 environmental scan findings, FY26 SWOT analysis, and senior leader input from the ATS leading to the develop and publish the FY26 Agency Annual Guidance, ensuring alignment with evolving objectives and key results, stakeholder feedback, and agency level priorities and guidance.

o Objective 5 Assess and Recommend Changes to Governance Structure to Include Support for Execution of DLA’s Strategy: Execute the logical follow-on to the initial governance assessment by evaluating DLA’s governance structure – focusing on the DLA Governance Counsil (DGC) – to assess alignment with the Strategic Plan and improve decision-making effectiveness. This includes reviewing the DGC processes and implementation, gathering stakeholder feedback, and making targeted recommendations to strengthen oversight and streamline operations across all levels of governance.

o Objective 7 Support the Implementation of DLA’s Strategic Plan: Continue supporting the in-flight rollout of the Strategic Plan and Objectives and Key Results by developing implementation of roadmaps, communications strategies, and executive Dashboard to track objective and key result progress. A key focus includes integrating the strategy Management Tool (SMT) to enhance visibility, enable data-driven decision-making, and support broader digital transformation efforts (capabilities and tools).

DT completed an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) in support of the proposed additional tasks under task order option period one. The estimated dollar value for the additional support was developed based on anticipated labor hours, level of effort required, and associated labor categories. The IGCE for the newly proposed work is . The total amount proposed for the option period aligns with the prevailing GSA rates and reflects industry standards for the services being procured.

CUI SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

such a relatively short period of time. AFS has spent the past year performing this work and gaining invaluable expertise and institutional knowledge through their performance. The government is uniquely poised to benefit from the economy of scale and lessons learned in having AFS continue this work. AFS possesses a deep knowledge of the current environment and infrastructures impacting the Strategic Plan. AFS’s experience working with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the DLA J codes, as well as the Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) all confer additional benefits insofar as this expertise offers greater efficiency and expediencies that another contractor could not offer the government at this time. Furthermore, transferring this knowledge to another contractor at this juncture would not be efficient as it would result in a substantial duplication of costs and effort and would not be in the government’s best interests.

Contractor’s current approach includes access to experts already supporting other MSCs, J-Codes, and technology modernization. No other contractor has the breadth of experts to accelerate DLA’s strategic vision into action in the required accelerated timeline.

Should this modification not be allowed and a separate vendor brought in, all the underlying data and knowledge obtained throughout the base year to build the Strategic Plan would be transferable to the new vendor given time to review the data and understand the information. Consequently, the government would be forced to pay the new vendor for duplicative work to analyze data already completed by the current vendor and paid for by the government. Moreover, the cost in time and productivity to key Agency personnel and lost time in a critical Agency program cannot be underestimated. The average total price of all quotes received for the base award was $ , which was % more than the awardee’s total quoted price of The awardee was the lowest priced quoter with the fewest labor hours quoted, which means a different vendor would most likely be higher priced with more labor hours than the current vendor.

The services are not separable and are intertwined and similar in nature with the amended PWS modification support not being materially different from the task order as awarded. Awarding the remaining aspects to a different vendor will create a high risk of contracting fratricide with separate vendors working overlapping aspects of the task order's PWS with no clear way to delineate lines of division. Separate task orders would ultimately slow down and degrade the effectiveness of the task order support. Therefore, logically separating the newly proposed support from the task order as awarded is not feasible nor is it in the government’s best interests as it is more resource effective and efficient to maintain support through one vendor.

(5) Determination by the ordering activity contracting officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d):

The Contracting Officer determines the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable, and that the resulting order represents the best value to the government by comparing quoted prices to the government’s estimate, prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items, historical prices paid for the same or similar services, and/or another methodology.

(6) Description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted:

Informal market research was completed in April 2025 that confirmed the findings of the previous market research completed prior to soliciting the base award in March 2024. The purpose of this research was to re-evaluate the current market conditions and available options for fulfilling the government's need for assessing, advising, and assisting with the development of scoping and planning activities for the recrafting of DLA’s Strategic Plan and associated strategic-related activities.

CUI SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Validation of Previous Research: Analysis confirms that the information presented in the previous market research completed prior to soliciting the base award remains accurate and relevant. The market landscape for Advisory & Assistance Services (AAS) has not significantly changed.

o Competitive Pricing: Analysis confirms that AFS’s pricing and labor rates remain competitive within the current market.

o Technical Acceptability: AFS continues to demonstrate technical competency and meets all required qualifications.

o Minimized Risk: Modifying the task order minimizes risk and ensures continuity of service, leveraging the existing relationship and knowledge base.

o Acquisition Strategy Unchanged: Given the above findings, the existing acquisition plan and strategy remain the most suitable approach.

(7) Other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

On the current contract, Accenture has demonstrated high-quality deliverables that met or exceeded DT’s expectations, including:

Implementing and executing Agency priorities and new developments as it relates to the DLA Strategic Plan 2025-2030

Governance framework redesign and consolidation Mission-Set Review Prioritization Developing and executing the objective and key result methodology to DLA agency-wide

This demonstrates Accenture’s experience successfully executing a highly similar scope that is the logical predecessor to the modification of PWS scope. A new contractor introduces significant risks of timeline delays, non-value-added onboarding, and re-work.

(8) Statement of the actions, if any, 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 is made:

DLA may not compete future requirements associated with the current task order because option periods remain available for exercise. In accordance with FAR Subpart 17.2 – Options, and specifically FAR 17.207(f), the government may exercise an option only after determining that doing so is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, the contractor’s performance has been acceptable, and the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Agency’s needs, with price and other factors considered. At this time, a follow-on procurement is not forecast. However, should a need be present to continue this support beyond the current task order, market research will be conducted for any additional follow-on requirements to determine if other sources exist and requirements may be competed. If another potential source emerges, DLA will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible, and, if so, DLA will work with the customer to prepare a competitive follow-on procurement. Should a follow-on procurement be necessary, at a minimum, research would be completed to determine a new contracting path as the STEPS BPAs are not intended for enduring / sustainment levels of support.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL