MACMI LPTA Determination MFR 3-22-2021.pdf

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

CONTRACTING SERVICES OFFICE

5404 J AVENUE, BUILDING 404

NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070-5059

March 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process Determination

This memorandum is in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101- 2(a) and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.101-2. I have determined that DLA will receive best value by using the LPTA source selection process to evaluate proposals received in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) SP7000-21-R-1001. The requirement and the basis for my LPTA determination are described in the analysis below.

1. Acquisition Requirement:

Through RFP SP7000-21-R-1001 and its accompanying Performance Work Statement (PWS), Defense Logistics Agency Contracting Services Office – New Cumberland (DCSO-P New Cumberland) seeks to enter into Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a total program maximum ceiling of $702,153,470.00.

This requirement is for up to 60 month leases (i.e., a one-year base period with the potential that DLA will exercise four (4) additional one-year options) of A3 (up to 11” x 17” output), A4 (up to 8.5” x 14” output) and production (up to 12” x 18” output) level Multifunctional Devices (MFDs), accessories and office document devices (hereafter collectively referred to as “devices”) within the 50 United States, Guam, and Puerto Rico along with services associated with the leased devices. Vendors must provide leased MFDs that copy, print, scan, and fax (except for SIPR MFDs which must not fax). The vendors must also provide services associated with these leased MFDs including delivery and installation (PWS § IV), end-user training (PWS § V), full-service maintenance including all consumable supplies except paper (PWS § VI), relocation (PWS § VII), technical refresh (PWS § VIII), removal (PWS § IX), reports (PWS § X), invoicing (PWS § XI), network functionality (PWS § XII), network security (PWS), Options to order preconfigured devices (PWS § XIV), testing (PWS § XV), supply chain risk management (PWS § XVI), an enterprise management tool (PWS § XVII) and base installation security requirements (PWS § XVIII) .

2. LPTA Determination:

DFARS 215.101-2-70(a) places limits on using the LPTA source selection process. Two of these limitations have the potential to be applicable to RFP SP7000-21-R-1001. First, under DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1), the LPTA source selection process may only be used when eight (8) factors are met. Second, under DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2)(i), contracting officers shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, using the LPTA source selection process in the case of a procurement that is predominately for the acquisition of information technology (IT) services.

I determined all eight (8) DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1) factors are present here.

Additionally, I determined that RFP SP7000-21-R-1001 does not seek to purchase primarily IT services or any other of the items set forth in DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2). However, even if it did, using a best value trade off (BVTO) source selection process would not be practicable. This is because DLA will not realize any value from proposals that exceed the minimum specifications in the RFP’s Performance Work Statement (PWS). In short, there is no value the Government would be willing to pay for from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical/performance requirements, as there is nothing unique required by the Government.

Because DLA will realize no benefit from the successful contractor exceeding any of the requirements set forth in the PWS, there are no technical trade-offs to be made.

My analysis follows.

A. Analysis Regarding DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1)’s Eight (8) Factors

Factor (i)

Minimum requirements are described clearly and comprehensively and expressed in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of offers.

I determined DLA’s minimum requirements are clearly and comprehensively defined.

Indeed, a review of the PWS shows each DLA requirement is set forth in meticulous detail explaining precisely what DLA needs.

o To start with, each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) has specific minimum device specifications and requirements. The requirements are then further specifically detailed in the PWS. For example:

PWS Section II sets forth the minimum requirements for all devices and configurations and Section III sets forth the minimum specifications for functional areas (FAs) and volume bands (VBs).

PWS Section IV details the delivery timeframes based on the number of devices ordered, when a device is considered installed and the paperwork required after a device is installed (within 10 business days), the option to order additional quantities and co-terminus periods of performance.

PWS Section V details the requirements of the end-user training to take place once devices are in place including: how to schedule training, topics to be covered, Summary Training Report for on-site training (due within 5 business days of training), a Contractor provided link for online training (if applicable, due within 5 business days of the link being provided), and requirements for a quick reference desk guide for each device.

PWS Section VI details the maintenance requirements. Maintenance includes preventative maintenance, service calls, repairs, troubleshooting, connectivity, and all associated labor and travel. It sets the requirements for an inoperable device (must be resolved within 10 business days of initial service call), required hours for technical support, service calls for non-remote areas (response times for work stoppage situations within 2 business hours and non-work stoppage situations within 4 business hours) and remote areas (response times for work stoppage situations within 4 business hours and non-work stoppage situations within 8 business hours), the requirement for original equipment manufacturer consumable supplies and the delivery timeframe for supplies (within 3 business days of the request), and information regarding on-site key operators and on-site technicians. A 95% monthly availability rate must be maintained.

PWS Section VII details device relocations, including the number of relocations, what a relocation entails, and paperwork required at the completion of the relocation. Relocations must be done within 30 calendar days.

PWS Section VIII provides for the technical refreshment of leased MFDs by allowing the contractors to replace products they are no longer able to provide with to be newer technology that meets or exceeds the performance of their original MFDs.

PWS Section IX details aspects of lease device removal, the requirement of removal of government owned equipment, and the paperwork associated with both. Removals must be completed within 30 days of contract expiration or the date of modification.

PWS Section X details the required reports submitted by the Contractors and reports the government may request.

PWS Section XI explains how invoices shall be submitted and what shall be included.

PWS Section XII details the requirements for network functionality.

PWS Section XIII details network security requirements such as:

configuration to comply with the current Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG), monitoring industry standard vulnerability sites (and instructions for if a vulnerability is identified), International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 15408 (Common Criteria) requirements for FAs 1 and 2, obtaining Risk Management Framework for DOD Information Technology accreditation, for FA 1 and 2 unclassified devices SMARTCARD Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Solution which is compliant with DODI 8520.03 and NIST FIPS 201 (PIV) standards is required, for FA 1 and 2 classified devices SMARTCARD PKI Solution with SIPRNet token capability, which is compliant with DOD requirements for PK-enabling and interoperability as set forth in DODI 8520.02 is required, and requirements and capabilities for FA 1 and 2 CAC/SIPR token authentication is available for scanning, printing and copying.

PWS Section XIV details the aspects and requirements of the optional pre-configured device if ordered.

PWS Section XV details the compliance testing for each proposed device, the location and length of testing, and the process if devices do not pass testing.

PWS Section XVI details the supply chain risk management requirements such as the minimum documentation required to be included in proposals and the NIST Special Publication 800-161 standards Contractors shall meet.

PWS Section XVII provides details for the Enterprise Management Tool (the metrics it shall monitor and the network where it will reside).

PWS Section XVIII details the installation security requirements for DOD at a high level. Not all installations have the same security requirements.

As this requirement covers many DOD installations, special security requirements will be detailed at the task order level prior to the reverse auction.

I further determined all requirements are expressed in performance objectives, measures, and standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of proposals. A review of the PWS shows each requirement is clearly stated and, as discussed more at Factor (iii) below, allows for little or no subjective judgment in its evaluation.

Factor (ii) No, or minimal, value will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements.

I determined no value is realized when proposals exceed the minimum technical or performance requirements. As discussed in Factor (i), above, DLA clearly and comprehensively defines its requirements. Indeed, as shown above, each DLA requirement is set forth in meticulous detail explaining precisely what DLA needs. Additionally, were a proposal to exceed DLA’s needs, DLA would realize at best extremely minimal value and more realistically no value. For example— o Based on Section III of the PWS, DLA’s requirements are separated into VBs and FAs. Some of the differences between VBs is speed (pages per minute or “PPM”) and estimated usage. As can be seen on PWS pages 3-5, VB1 devices requirement a minimum 25 PPM, VB2 devices require a minimum 35 PPM, VB3 devices require a minimum 45 PPM, VB4 devices require a minimum 50 PPM, and VB5 devices require a minimum 60 PPM. Because of this tiered-structure, DLA would realize no value if, for example, a proposer offered a VB1 device that exceeds 25 PPM. Instead, DLA would satisfy its needs by going up to the next VB tier (VB2 in this example). Thus, there is no value added for proposals exceeding the stated requirements and specifications.

o Based on delivery trends on orders issued by DCSO-P New Cumberland regarding similar contracts for over a decade, the delivery and installation requirements in Section IV of the PWS are the shortest timeframes possible based on the number of devices ordered without adding significant cost. Moreover, the option for expedited delivery, albeit at an anticipated higher cost, within 15 calendar days for up to 10 devices for unclassified A3, VBs 1 – 3 only is included in the requirement. Thus, there is no value added from a shorter delivery timeframe.

o Based on Section V of the PWS, the training listed fulfills the Government’s need of high-level training for the day-to-day use of the devices. If additional information is needed, the technical support detailed in Section VI of the PWS can be utilized. Thus, there is no value added in additional training received.

o Based on Section VI of the PWS, the maintenance requirement is a minimum 95% monthly availability rate. A higher availability rate assumes that devices never malfunction which is unlikely. The service technician support hours cover most working hours for end users. Additionally, if DLA’s end users require faster response times for work stoppage and non-work stoppage situations than listed, they may add the on-site key operator and on-site technicians for a 1 business hour response time for work stoppage situations and 2 business hour response time for non-work stoppage situations. Thus, there is no value added in increased maintenance coverage.

o Based on Section VII of the PWS, device relocations shall be completed within 30 calendar days. Similar to new device deliveries, current trends within DCSO – P New Cumberland show 30 calendar days is the most realistic timeframe for relocations. Thus, there is no value added from a shorter relocation timeframe.

o Based on Section VIII of the PWS, technical refreshes will take place when a Contractor’s proposed products are no longer available. Different Contractors will likely propose technical refreshes at different times. The devices still must meet all the minimum requirements stated in the PWS. There is no value added for newer devices as they still must meet the minimum specifications.

o Based on Section IX of the PWS, device removals must occur within 30 calendar days of contract expiration or receipt of a modification. Similar to deliveries and relocations, current trends within DCSO – P New Cumberland show 30 calendar days is the most realistic timeframe for device removals. There is no value added from a shorter removal timeframe.

o Based on Section X of the PWS, the reports required from the Contractors are what the Government needs to confirm delivery, relocation, and removal as well as verify monthly invoices are accurate. The additional reports the Government may request are used to verify compliance with other aspects of the PWS such as device usage, response time, and device downtime/uptime. Any other reports do not add value to the requirement.

o Based on Section XI of the PWS, the Device Listing Report and Removal/Relocation Report (if applicable) are required to be submitted in Wide Area Work Flow for invoicing. There are no additional items required for invoice submission, therefore, additional information or reports do not add value to the requirement.

o The minimum requirements for network functionality are stated in Section XII of the PWS with instruction that specific network information for the end-users will be provided after task order award at the time of installation. The minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased network functionality.

o The minimum requirements for network security are stated in Section XIII of the PWS. These minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased network security.

o Based on XIV of the PWS, if required by the end-user, devices must be pre-configured to meet CAC functionality and DISA STIG requirements as options, prior to delivery, to ensure they connect and function on networks with no, or minimal, IT support. The devices still must meet all the minimum CAC and STIG requirements stated in the PWS. These minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased pre-configured devices.

o Based on XV of the PWS, all devices proposed in response to the contract shall be tested for compliance with Network Security as defined in Section XIII after award. The tests conducted reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in additional testing.

o The minimum requirements for Supply Chain Risk Management in Section XVI of the PWS reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased supply chain risk management.

o The minimum requirements for Enterprise Management tool in Section XVII of the PWS reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in additional enterprise management tools.

o The minimum requirements for installation security access are explained in Section XVIII of the PWS. These requirements are the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere. There is no added value in additional security clearances or requirements if the installation or type of device (classified or unclassified) does not warrant it.

Factor (iii)

The proposed technical approaches will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offerors proposal versus a competing proposal.

I determined the proposed technical approaches will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offerors proposal versus a competing proposal.

o As discussed in Factor (i), above, the PWS meticulously sets forth DLA’s requirements in exacting detail. The technical review, which will determine whether proposals meet these requirements, is not subjective. Each proposal must include the device specifications and how the proposals will meet the non-device specification requirements of the PWS. The proposed devices either meet the minimum required specifications, or they do not. The proposals either meet all the requirements set forth in the PWS or they do not. Additionally, proposals will not be compared to one another, rather, they will be rated independently.

Factor (iv)

The source selection authority (SSA) has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit.

The SSA has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors will not result in the identification of characteristics that will provide value or benefit to DLA. Her March 19, 2021, written determination is attached to this MFR.

Factor (v) No additional innovation or future technological advantage will be realized by using a different source selection process.

I have determined no additional innovation or future technological advantage will be realized using a different source selectin process.

o The end user’s needs are for devices that provide copy, print, scan, and fax

(except SIPR) functionalities. There are numerous functionalities on current devices in place that the end user’s do not utilize. Additional functionalities provide no benefit. The Government does not require additional innovation or technological advantages, rather, the Contractor must meet the minimum specifications and requirements of the PWS and support the industry standard for multi-functional devices.

o No additional innovation or future technological advantage will be realized by using a different source selection process. These devices are “of a type” customarily used by the general public for other than governmental purposes.

Market research and review of catalogs, and/or product literature for these commercially available devices has been reviewed and is available via an internet search. DCSO has used the market capabilities of this industry to meet customer device requirements for many years.

Factor (vi) Goods to be procured are predominantly expendable in nature, are nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or short shelf life.

I have determined the goods being procured are for the lease of MFDs. Because the

MFDs are being leased, they are expendable in nature considered to have a short life expectancy.

o Because the MFDs are being leased rather than purchased, this is a services contract. While the MFDs themselves are goods (i.e., a supply), because this is a lease, the ownership of the leased MFDs remains with the contractor at all times.

At no time will the government own these leased MFDs as it would a normal supply. Additionally, the Policy and Support Branch Chief for J67E, states the life-cycle for MFDs is 3 to 5 years. After 3 to 5 years, MFDs generally become obsolete (parts cannot be replaced and devices become out of DISA STIG compliance).

o Devices deemed nonoperational must be replaced by the contractor (at no additional cost to DCSO). The use of devices accompanied with the services requested in the PWS make the devices expendable in nature and considered to have a short life expectancy.

Factor (vii) The contract file contains a determination that the lowest price reflects full life-cycle costs (as defined at FAR 7.101) of the product(s) or service(s) being acquired (see PGI 215.101-2-70(a)(1)(vii) for information on obtaining this determination);

I have determined the lowest price proposals reflect the full life-cycle costs.

o The IGCE shows the full life-cycle costs. The PWS details activities for this requirement’s full life-cycle. On August 7, 2020, the requiring activity Policy and Support Branch Chief for J67E, confirmed via email that the independent government cost estimate reflects acquiring (delivery and installation), operating (relocations and consumables), supporting (maintenance and technical support), and (if applicable) disposing of the items being acquired in this requirement’s full life-cycle costs. A copy of this email is in the contracting file.

o Additionally, a review of the PWS clearly shows the full life-cycle, “from cradle to grave,” is meticulously set forth and accounted for in DLA’s requirements from acquisition of the leased MFDs (PWS §§ I-III), delivery and installation (PWS § IV), training (PWS § V), maintenance (PWS § VI), relocations (PWS § VII), technical refreshment (PWS § VIII), and removals (PWS § IX). Moreover, every other associated service is also meticulously set forth in the DLA’s requirements.

This includes reports (PWS § X), invoicing (PWS § XI), network functionality (PWS § XII), network security (PWS), Options to order preconfigured devices (PWS § XIV), testing (PWS § XV), supply chain risk management (PWS § XVI), an enterprise management tool (PWS § XVII) and base installation security requirements (PWS § XVIII). These full life-cycle also completely fulfill the J67E EMS Division’s program needs such that its Director (who is the SSA) has determined she is not willing to pay any additional money whatsoever for minor improvements that may exceed DLA’s requirements.

Factor (viii) The contracting officer documents the contract file describing the circumstances justifying the use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

This MFR, which describes the circumstances justifying the use of the LPTA source selection process, will be placed into the contract file.

B. Analysis Regarding DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2)(i)’s Requirement to Avoid, to the

Maximum Extent Practicable, Using the LPTA Source Selection Process to Procure Predominately IT Services and Other Items

This procurement is not predominately for information technology (IT) services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services.

o MFDs are considered “electronic and information technology (EIT)” in accordance with the FAR Part 2 definition: “The term EIT, includes, but is not limited to, telecommunication products (such as telephones), information kiosks and transaction machines, worldwide websites, multimedia, and office equipment (such as copiers and fax machines).” The leased MFDs sought through RFP SP7000-21-R-1001 are office equipment that are very similar to copiers and fax machines. In contrast, the FAR Part 2 definition of “Information Technology” does not include office equipment such as copiers and fax machines. It follows from these definitions that services associated with lease of MFDs are not IT services.

o In accordance with the DFARS PGI 237.102-74 taxonomy for the acquisition of services and supplies and equipment document, device leases are categorized as equipment related services. The product service code (PSC) recommended for device leases is W074 (Equipment Leases; Office Machines, Text Processing Systems, and Visible Record Equipment). This requirement is not considered information technology services. Product Service Code W074 will be utilized for this requirement.

Based on the buy vs. lease analysis, the maintenance portion of total life-cycle cost ranges from roughly 6% to 25% of the total monthly price for leasing an MFD. The rest of the monthly price covers the cost of leasing the MFD and the consumable supplies it uses during that month. Thus, the majority of the monthly price is for supplies.

While the training portion of the requirement (PWS § V) is considered knowledge based professional services, the required training is a brief, high-level overview given at the start of the device lease that explains the leased MFD’s basic functions, special features, simple malfunction resolutions, and how to get assistance (be it for more supplies or resolution for more serious malfunctions). As such, training is a minute portion of the overall requirement. Thus, I determine RFP SP7000-21-R-1001 is not predominately for the purchase of knowledge-based professional services.

o Market research shows the General Services Administration (GSA) classifies the lease of MFDs as a supply under SIN 532420LC Operating Lease Plan for Copiers under Office Management – Printing and Photographic Equipment utilizing PSC 3610.

Furthermore, even if this requirement was considered an IT Service, the use of LPTA source selection procedures is not prohibited by DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2). (Compare DFARS 215.101-2-70(b), that sets forth circumstances where use of the LPTA source selection process is prohibited.) Instead, DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2) requires contracting officers to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, using the LPTA source selection process when acquiring items such as IT services. Importantly, here, I have determined that using a BVTO source selection process is not practicable. This is because DLA will not realize any value from proposals that exceed the minimum specifications in the RFP’s Performance Work Statement (PWS). In short, as the J67E EMS Division Director (who is the SSA) states, there is no value the Government would be willing to pay for from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical/performance requirements, (See SSA MFR, attached). Under such circumstances, using a BVTO source selection process would be disingenuous and would quite likely mislead proposers (who presumably would reasonably understand such a VTBO source selection process to mean their submitting a higher priced proposal that, at least from their perspective, exceeds DLA’s requirements, would likely have a better chance of receiving an award).

Because it not practicable to use the VTBO source selection process here, I determine that using the LPTA source selection process here complies with DFARS 215.101-2-70.

Moreover, the LPTA source selection process is appropriate for this requirement because there are no technical tradeoffs. Again, DLA anticipates no benefit to a proposal that exceeds the specifications and requirements of the PWS.

Based on the analysis above, I determined the LPTA source selection process will be utilized for this requirement.

MARISSA M. JACKSON

Contracting Officer DCSO – P New Cumberland

March 1 , 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Source Selection Authority’s (SSA’s) Determination that, with regard to Request for Proposals (RFP) SP7000-21-R-1001, She has a High Degree of Confidence that Reviewing the Technical Proposals of All Offerors Would Not Result in the Identification of Characteristics that Could Provide Value or Benefit

I hold the position of Director for the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA’s) Equipment Management Solutions (EMS) Division. DLA’s EMS Division is referred to as J67E and is part of DLA’s Strategic Data Services’ (J67) which is part of DLA’s Information Operation’s (J6). I have held this position for 6 years. Prior to becoming the Director of the EMS Division, I was the Assessment Program Manager within the EMS Division, working with customers and their office printer fleets in order to rightsize their print environment, as well as the Technology Innovation Manager with responsibility to identify new technologies in the print industry.

The EMS Division (J67E) runs a program whereby leased multifunctional devices (MFDs) that copy, print, scan and fax, as well as associated services, are provide to its participating Department of Defense (DoD) customers and other authorized federal government customers. The J67E EMS Division does this by working with its DoD customers to develop its internal program requirements. These requirements take into account the full lifecycle cost (i.e., the total cost to the Government of acquiring, operating, supporting, and disposing of the items being acquired) from cradle-to-grave in a manner that best supports its DoD customer’s needs.

Using these standardized requirements, the J67E EMS Division then works with DLA’s Contract Services Office (DCSO) to provide assisted acquisitions under the authority of either the General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) delegation as item material manager for Federal Supply Code 3610 or the Economy Act.

The EMS Division has existed within DLA’s J6 for many decades (albeit via several iterations as reorganizations within J6 have occurred). Indeed, it traces its history back to the 1970s when it predecessor organization, which was then part of the U.S. Navy, began supplying copier machines to its DoD customers. Over the years, the J67E EMS Division has kept current with the developing market trends for this commercial item and worked with its DoD customers to understand and develop precisely what the DoD currently needs are when it comes to MFDs.

These requirements are contained in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for RFP SP7000- 21-R-1001. A review of this PWS shows the requirements are meticulously set forth in exacting detail. Again, this is because, over the decades we have learned precisely what our DoD customers need regarding leased MFDs and associated services. Because of this, neither the J67E EMS Division nor its DoD customers benefit from contractors providing leased MFDs or associated services that exceed the exacting requirements set forth in the PWS.

DDEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

STRATEGIC DATA SERVICES

5404 J AVENUE, BUILDING 404

NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070

I am also the SSA for RFP SP7000-21-R-1001. Through this RFP, the J67E EMS Division seeks DCSO provide it up to six (6) multiple award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to supply leased MFDs and associated services to our participating DoD customers throughout the United States, including Guam and Puerto Rico.

I understand the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.101- 2-70(a) places limits on the DoD’s use of the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Specifically, it states the LPTA source selection process shall only be used when eight (8) factors are met. One of these factors, set forth at DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(iv), is—

(iv) The source selection authority has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit

As the SSA for RFP SP7000-21-R-1001, I do have a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit. The following sets forth my analysis for reaching this conclusion.

First, as noted above, over the decades my J67E EMS Division has learned precisely what our DoD customers need when it comes to MFDs and associated services. These precise requirements are meticulously set forth the PWS for SP7000-21-R-1001.

Thus, I agree with the Contracting Officer’s determination in her draft Memorandum for the Record (MFR) regarding her LPTA Source Selection Process Determination, which she shared with me to assist in my determination, that minimal value –or more realistically no value— will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. I hereby adopt and concur with the examples the Contracting Officer correctly uses to points this fact out o Based on Section III of the PWS, DLA’s requirements are separated into VBs and FAs. Some of the differences between VBs is speed (pages per minute or “PPM”) and estimated usage. As can be seen on PWS pages 3-5, VB1 devices requirement a minimum 25 PPM, VB2 devices require a minimum 35 PPM, VB3 devices require a minimum 45 PPM, VB4 devices require a minimum 50 PPM, and VB5 devices require a minimum 60 PPM. Because of this tiered-structure, DLA would realize no value if, for example, a proposer offered a VB1 device that exceeds 25 PPM. Instead, DLA would satisfy its needs by going up to the next VB tier (VB2 in this example). Thus, there is no value added for proposals exceeding the stated requirements and specifications.

o Based on delivery trends on orders issued by DCSO-P New Cumberland regarding similar contracts for several decades, the delivery and installation requirements in Section IV of the PWS are the shortest timeframes possible based on the number of devices ordered without adding significant cost.

Moreover, the option for expedited delivery, albeit at an anticipated higher cost, within 15 calendar days for up to 10 devices for unclassified A3, VBs 1

– 3 only is included in the requirement. Thus, there is no value added from a shorter delivery timeframe.

o Based on Section V of the PWS, the training listed fulfills the Government’s need of high-level training for the day-to-day use of the devices. If additional information is needed, the technical support detailed in Section VI of the PWS can be utilized. Thus, there is no value added in additional training received.

o Based on Section VI of the PWS, the maintenance requirement is a minimum 95% monthly availability rate. A higher availability rate assumes that devices never malfunction which is unlikely. The service technician support hours cover most working hours for end users. Additionally, if DLA’s end users require faster response times for work stoppage and non-work stoppage situations than listed, they may add the on-site key operator and on-site technicians for a 1 business hour response time for work stoppage situations and 2 business hour response time for non-work stoppage situations. Thus, there is no value added in increased maintenance coverage.

o Based on Section VII of the PWS, device relocations shall be completed within 30 calendar days. Similar to new device deliveries, current trends within DCSO – P New Cumberland show 30 calendar days is the most realistic timeframe for relocations. Thus, there is no value added from a shorter relocation timeframe.

o Based on Section VIII of the PWS, technical refreshes will take place when a Contractor’s proposed products are no longer available. Different Contractors will likely propose technical refreshes at different times. The devices still must meet all the minimum requirements stated in the PWS. There is no value added for newer devices as they still must meet the minimum specifications.

o Based on Section IX of the PWS, device removals must occur within 30 calendar days of contract expiration or receipt of a modification. Similar to deliveries and relocations, current trends within DCSO – P New Cumberland show 30 calendar days is the most realistic timeframe for device removals.

There is no value added from a shorter removal timeframe.

o Based on Section X of the PWS, the reports required from the Contractors are what the Government needs to confirm delivery, relocation, and removal as well as verify monthly invoices are accurate. The additional reports the Government may request are used to verify compliance with other aspects of the PWS such as device usage, response time, and device downtime/uptime.

Any other reports do not add value to the requirement.

o Based on Section XI of the PWS, the Device Listing Report and Removal/Relocation Report (if applicable) are required to be submitted in Wide Area Work Flow for invoicing. There are no additional items required for invoice submission, therefore, additional information or reports do not add value to the requirement.

o The minimum requirements for network functionality are stated in Section XII of the PWS with instruction that specific network information for the end-users will be provided after task order award at the time of installation. The minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased network functionality.

o The minimum requirements for network security are stated in Section XIII of the PWS. These minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased network security.

o Based on XIV of the PWS, if required by the end-user, devices must be pre-configured to meet CAC functionality and DISA STIG requirements as options, prior to delivery, to ensure they connect and function on networks with no, or minimal, IT support. The devices still must meet all the minimum CAC and STIG requirements stated in the PWS. These minimum requirements reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased pre-configured devices.

o Based on XV of the PWS, all devices proposed in response to the contract shall be tested for compliance with Network Security as defined in Section XIII after award. The tests conducted reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in additional testing.

o The minimum requirements for Supply Chain Risk Management in Section XVI of the PWS reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in increased supply chain risk management.

o The minimum requirements for Enterprise Management tool in Section XVII of the PWS reflect the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere, therefore, there is no added value in additional enterprise management tools.

o The minimum requirements for installation security access are explained in Section XVIII of the PWS. These requirements are the DOD standard the Government is required to adhere. There is no added value in additional security clearances or requirements if the installation or type of device (classified or unclassified) does not warrant it.

Second, I have considered the J67E EMS Division’s program structure by which it serves its DoD customers. Through this program, DLA procures commercial items (both the leased MFDs and associated services) that have been fundamentally unchanged since the mid-1990s. While minor improvements may occur slowly over time, under the J67 EMS Division’s program structure, it is overwhelmingly more important to have these well-established commercially available items meet the program’s, which includes its DoD customers’, existing requirements than to seek out minor technical improvements that may occur. Indeed, the J67E EMS Division and its DoD customers receive no value whatsoever from such minor technical improvements.

Thus, as the program’s Director, I am not willing to pay any additional money whatsoever for such minor improvements.

Third, this is, and has been, a well-developed commercial item (both the leased MFDs and associated services) for many decades. My J67E EMS Division has been monitoring and staying abreast of this the market through these many years. Indeed, my team has a combined 87 years of technical experience in this area. Thus, it is exceeding unlikely that any proposal will identify any characteristics (i.e., MFD features, services, etc.) that my team was not already aware of or otherwise did not fully consider in developing our exacting program requirements.

Again, these program requirements are meticulously set forth in exacting detail in the PWS.

For all the above reasons, I have a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit.

TERRA L. NGUYEN

Director EMS Division (J67E)

NGUYEN.TERRA

.L.1282358103

Digitally signed by

NGUYEN.TERRA.L.1282358103

Date: 2021.03.19 11:53:01 -04'00'