Executed_LSJ.pdf

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (LSJ)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF AGENCY AND CONTRACTING OFFICE

Agency: Social Security Administration

Contracting Office: Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management Office of Acquisition and Grants (OAG)

Contracting Officer (CO): Brenda Monch

(410) 965-9521

Program Office: Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management Office of Facilities and Supply Management (OFSM)

Contracting Officer’s Barbara Doame Technical Representative: 410-965-1202

(COTR)

Title: Facilities Maintenance and Operations Project

Proposed Contractor: Pacific Consulting Group, Inc.

2. NATURE OF ACTION

We seek approval of an LSJ to modify an existing firm-fixed-price, commercial-services task order (with cost reimbursement travel) with Pacific Consulting Group (PCG) under task order number SS00-14-32002, General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract number GS-23F-9782H.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND ESTIMATED COST

Estimated Cost: $1,394,000

On September 29, 2014, OAG awarded task order number SS00-14-32002 to PCG to perform an in-depth assessment of OFSM’s nationwide space acquisition and the development of a comprehensive facility operation and management plan for the agency’s headquarters main complex. The period of performance is from September 29, 2014 through September 28, 2015.

In accordance with the deliverable schedule, the contractor completed its assessment by July 2015 as well as other various deliverables and presented its findings to us, which were substantial. PCG delivered numerous recommendations for process improvements pertaining to development of the comprehensive facility operation and management plan. In reviewing PCG’s recommendations, we discovered several additional tasks needed to enable us to begin implementing changes necessary to improve the headquarters building operation and maintenance processes.

The tasks we identified include:

• Need additional assistance in developing operating procedures for mechanical equipment, such as boilers, and for testing the finalized operating procedures;

• Perform a complete assessment of our facilities maintenance software, including assistance in modifying current business processes (identified during current project) to fully utilize the software and gain further process efficiencies;

• Develop a plan to help OFSM begin implementation of the broad scope of PCG recommendations to improve facilities maintenance and operations;

• Develop and implement an OFSM communication campaign related to the extensive changes resulting from the project; and

• Begin implementation of a recommended facilities maintenance quality-assurance plan.

As stated above, the estimated value for performance of these additional tasks is $1,394,000.

The original price of the task order was $1,731,575.76. We anticipate we need to extend the period of performance through June 30, 2016. Given the extension and the value of the increase, the additional work has been determined to be out of the scope of the original task order.

4. AUTHORITY AND JUSTIFICATION RATIONALE

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 FSS, the rationale for this justification is FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) – in the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original FSS order. We did not issue the original FSS order under a sole source or limited source procedure.

Awarding this work to any source other than PCG would result in a duplication of effort and delay in essential transformations within OFSM.

PCG performed the in-depth analysis and initial development of deliverables of the buildings maintenance and operations business processes. As part of their investigation, they gained extremely insightful feedback through in-person interviews with management, staff, and customers.

The time it would take for another contractor to become acclimated with the intricacies of OFSM’s processes, practices, culture, as well as to attain the level of knowledge and understanding that PCG currently possesses under this project would be substantial. This learning curve would negatively affect the current momentum of the project. The implementation of the improvements that are long overdue and very much needed to achieve OFSM’s goal of becoming a results-oriented organization would stall midway through the process.

Additionally, OFSM management has been involved every step of the way throughout the process with PCG. They have invested a significant amount of their valuable time, because they realize the potential impact to the agency as a whole. However, their time is valuable, and the administrative costs associated with repeating the effort with a new contractor would be great. We cannot afford this redundancy. These administrative costs coupled with the costs of the learning curve for a new contract make it unlikely that competing this requirement will result in any savings.

Award to a contractor other than PCG would result in unacceptable delays due to a longer acquisition timeline, and again would not result in any savings.

5. DETERMINATION OF BEST VALUE

Even though GSA has already determined the fixed-price rates for services offered at hourly rates under FSS contracts to be fair and reasonable, the CO will perform an evaluation of the proposed level of effort and the labor mix, as required by FAR subpart 8.405-2(d). In addition, consistent with FAR subpart 8.404(d), the CO will determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable and represents the best value to the Government.

6. MARKET RESEARCH CONDUCTED

This modification is a logical follow-on to the original task order (SS00-14-32002) issued under GSA FSS contract number GS-23F-9782H. The original task order was competed and we received two responses. As set forth in subpart 8.404, Use of Federal Supply Schedules, when placing orders under contracts using the procedures of FAR subpart 8.405, ordering activities shall not seek competition outside of FSS or synopsize the requirement.

7. OTHER SUPPORTING FACTS

PCG has been determined to be a responsible contractor by GSA in accordance with FAR subpart 9.104-1. The company’s past performance records indicate that they have the ability, knowledge, skills, and resources to perform this requirement. Additionally, they have been performing exceptionally under this task order to date.

8. REMOVING OR OVERCOMING BARRIERS

OFSM and OAG will make every attempt to compete future requirements. As mentioned previously, the initial procurement was competed using subpart 8.4 procedures.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE COTR

AND CONCURRENCE OF THE PROGRAM OFFICIALS

The COTR and other program officials hereby certify that the information provided in support of justification for consideration of a limited source is accurate and complete.

RECOMMEND: July 30, 2015 Barbara Doame Date

Office of Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management Office of Facilities and Supply Management

CONCUR: July 30, 2015 Chris Molander Date Associate Commissioner for Facilities and Supply Management Office of Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management

8/28/2015

CERTIFICATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

AND OTHER CONTRACTING OFFICIALS

The contracting officer and other contracting officials hereby certify that the information provided in support of this justification for consideration of a limited source is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

RECOMMEND: 8/14/2015

Brenda Monch Date Contracting Officer Division of Programs Contracts (DPC) Office of Information Technology Acquisition (OITA) Office of Acquisition and Grants (OAG)

CONCUR: 8/11/15

Christopher Brennan Date Division Director, DPC, OITA, OAG

CONCUR: 8/17/2015

Christian Hellie Date Office Director, OITA, OAG

CONCUR: Cathy A. Bella 8/24/2015 Cathy A. Bella Date Deputy Associate Commissioner, OAG

CONCUR: 8/24/15

Seth Binstock Date Associate Commissioner, OAG

APPROVE:

Michelle A. King Date

SSA Competition Advocate

Competition Advocate Review Board (CARB)

Project Title: Facilities Maintenance and Operations Project – Pacific Consulting

Estimated Amount: $1,394,000

Review and discussion occurred: Electronically

For a

X___Limited Source Justification (LSJ)

____Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)

CARB Panel Members

Associate Commissioner, Office of Facilities and Supply Management (or designee)

__ Date_August 26, 2015

__X_ I recommend signature by the approving official

_____I do not recommend signature by the approving official

General Counsel (or designee)

Date_August 24, 2015

__X_ I concur that the justification is legally sufficient

_____I do not concur that the justification is legally sufficient