LSJ Price Benchmarking_SB Analytics Refresh_Redacted.pdf

o Update the existing Benchmarking Playbook, including audit and replacement of obsolete data sources, and provide an updated perspective on how DLA can build and sustain the capability in-house.

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Small Business (SB) Analytics Study Refresh o Refresh the prior small-business vendor-churn and root-cause assessment with 2026 data.

o Extend the existing 10-year historical supplier attrition/exit model.

o Identify long-term structural root causes of supplier decrease and conduct related interagency / vendor-base-size analysis.

Period of Performance: 09 September 2026 – 16 October 2026.

Independent Government Cost Estimate:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Order Purchase Request Amount:

Appropriation Year: FY26 Type of Funds:

(4) Authority and supporting rational and, if applicable, a demonstration of the proposed contractor's unique qualifications to provide the required supply or service:

The acquisition is conducted on a limited source basis pursuant to one or more of the following authorities:

GSA Ordering Procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii), The order should be issued on a sole source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order already issued on a competitive basis.

GSA Ordering Procedures 538.7104-3(b)(1)(iii) applies because the requirement is a logical follow-on to an FSS order already issued on a competitive basis under the Strategic Transformation and Enterprise Project Support (STEPS) blanket purchase agreements (BPAs).

The Material Cost Benchmarking methodology, sampling framework, three approaches, and initial Playbook were initially developed under SP4704-25-F-0024-P00001. The current requirement is a refresh of those work products taking into account DLA spend for FY26.

The concurrent SB/DIB analytics refresh builds on the prior vendor-churn and root-cause framework (originally developed under AFSTS indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle FA7014-22-F-0374-P00003). Although the earlier SB work was performed under a different vehicle, executing both refreshes together under a single order makes continuity with the same contractor essential. Only the incumbent holds the integrated methodological knowledge, data structures, and prior-year artifacts for both efforts. Awarding elsewhere would force reconstruction of both foundations, increasing cost, schedule risk, and inconsistency.

Issuing the order to the incumbent is therefore in the best interest of the government.

(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, that the quoted rates do not exceed the current GSA FSS rates, and that the resulting order represents the best value to the government by comparing quoted prices to historical prices paid for the same or similar supplies/services, comparison to the independent government cost estimate (IGCE), 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:

Market research was limited because the requirement is a logical follow-on to work already performed under previous orders. The original benchmarking methodology and Playbook, as well as the prior SB analytics framework, were developed by the incumbent. No other contractor possesses the specific methodological artifacts, data models, and prior-year work products required to execute a high-fidelity refresh of both efforts within the approximately five-week period of performance. Broader market research among other contractors would not identify a source capable of meeting the technical and schedule requirements without significant duplication of prior effort and a high associated cost.

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

The compressed period of performance and the requirement to deliver the refreshed benchmarking report with senior-leader briefing, updated Playbook, and refreshed SB analytics study further support the need for the contractor that already performed the foundational work to perform the work of this requirement. Continuity of methodology and data structures is essential to the re-validation assessment that is required.

(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:

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 4, DLA has no plans at this time to compete future contacts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, DLA will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION