St Elizabaths JOTFOC.pdf

U.S. General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Acquisition Project Delivery Capital Construction Division Office of Acquisition Management

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (FAR 6.103)

Emergency Demolition of Multiple Buildings at the St. Elizabeths West Campus, Washington, DC

1. Agency and Contracting Activity (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.104-1(a)(1))

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service (PBS), Office of Acquisition Management (OAM), plans to contract by means of other than full and open competition.

Vendor Name: Clark Construction Group, LLC (Clark) UEI: QQBXQR679KM9

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved (FAR 6.104-1(a)(2))

GSA intends to award a sole-source contract to Clark Construction Group, LLC, for the controlled demolition of multiple vacant, dilapidated buildings located within the secure perimeter of the St. Elizabeths West Campus, Washington, DC. These buildings pose significant security and safety risks as identified by the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Secretary of the DHS wrote GSA on 12/19/25 to invoke the Emergency Undertaking Authority under the St. Elizabeths Programmatic Agreement (PA) with GSA. The PA governs the redevelopment of the St.

Elizabeths West Campus. Her invocation was supported by DHS’ Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO), in coordination with the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and the Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCRSO).

The FPS’ assessment of the St. Elizabeths Campus identified significant security and safety risks posed by the vacant buildings located on campus. These risks impact personnel safety, campus operations, and emergency response capabilities. The assessment’s conclusion was that immediate attention is required to address the security and safety vulnerabilities associated with vacant buildings on campus. Its recommendation was that the buildings should be removed; if these buildings are not removed, the identified security and safety concerns will persist, increasing the risk of potential undesirable events, which cannot be permitted at the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths Campus.

The OCSO’s threat assessment of the St. Elizabeths Campus identified Key Vulnerabilities and Risks posed by the seventeen (17) vacant buildings. Its conclusion was that the vacant buildings create significant insider threat vulnerabilities to include physical, technical, and procedural concerns which negatively impact the Department’s security posture. Their reduced oversight, incomplete integration into existing security programs, and physical proximity to leadership and critical operations create opportunities for malicious, negligent, or compromised insiders to plan and execute harmful activities with a lower risk of detection. By removing these unoccupied buildings, the Department can materially reduce the risks associated with these spaces and better protect its leadership, personnel, information, and mission.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value) (FAR 6.104-1(a)(3))

Docusign Envelope ID: C0965D58-3CC5-4C69-AE53-C431C098AC3B https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-6#FAR_6_103

Accordingly, demolition of these buildings is necessary to eliminate documented life-safety and national security risks and to meet the Government’s minimum needs. The required demolition services include, but are not limited to:

• Emergency demolition planning and execution

• Hazardous materials abatement (including asbestos, lead, PCBs, mold, and related materials)

• Utility isolation, removal, and demolition

• Environmental controls, site stabilization, and restoration

• Full compliance with applicable GSA, DHS, OSHA, EPA, NHPA, NEPA, and local permitting requirements

These services are required immediately to mitigate the life-safety and national security risks documented by DHS assessments and cannot be delayed without an unacceptable risk to personnel and campus operations.

Estimated Dollar Value: The Independent Government Estimate for this effort is $23 - $30 million dollars.

4. An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition (FAR

6.104-1(a)(4))

41 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(2) Unusual and compelling urgency, implemented by FAR 6.103-2.

5. A demonstration that the proposed contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires using the authority cited (FAR 6.104-1(a)(5))

Nature of the Acquisition

An FPS assessment entitled “Assessment of Security and Safety Risks Associated with Vacant Buildings on the St. Elizabeth Campus”, dated 12/19/2025, identified the vacant buildings as active threats.

Key Threats identified included: Insider Threat, Hostile Surveillance, Hazardous Materials Release, Explosive Devices, Cyber Threats, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives Threats, and Ballistic Attack. Other Security and Safety Considerations identified included: Officer Safety, Access Control and Intrusion Detection, Occupant Emergency Plan, Progressive Collapse and Facade and Building Protection.

Please refer to Attachment II for complete details.

The OCSO’s Threat Management Operations (TMO) office completed an assessment entitled “Insider Threat Risk Assessment” on 12/19/25 identifying the following Key Vulnerabilities and Risks.

Key Vulnerabilities and Risks identified included: Physical Access Control, Logical and IT Access, Surveillance, Monitoring and Observation, Technical Security, Staging.

Please refer to Attachment III for complete details.

Considering all these factors, the DHS Secretary formally declared an emergency condition at the St.

Elizabeths West Campus. She found the vacant deteriorated buildings, within the level V campus, amounted to imminent threats to life, safety, and national security.

Contractors Unique Qualifications

Clark Construction Group, LLC is the only contractor capable of executing the demolition within the required emergency timeframe due to the following non-replicable conditions:

• Immediate On-Site Presence and Mobilization o Clark is the prime contractor for the ongoing DHS Building 1 construction project and maintains a continuous, credentialed workforce and heavy equipment already inside the secure perimeter.

o No other contractor can mobilize without weeks or months of security processing, badging, escort coordination, and access approvals.

• Permit and Campus Familiarity o Clark holds active permits, established utility coordination, and demonstrated experience working under St. Elizabeths specific security, environmental, and historic preservation constraints.

o Introduction of a new contractor would require duplicative permitting and coordination, materially delaying risk mitigation.

For these reasons, Clark is the only contractor that can satisfy the Government’s minimum needs within the required timeframe. The government considered whether requesting offers from multiple sources would be practicable under the circumstances. Based on market research and direct outreach to available contract vehicles and contractors, the Government determined that limited competition would not satisfy the emergency invocation by DHS. While other contractors may possess general demolition capability, none can meet the Government’s minimum need to begin work within days. Any competitive or limited-source approach would require solicitation issuance, proposal preparation and evaluation, award, contractor mobilization, and completion of security processing, badging, site access approvals, and permitting. These steps would extend the award and start of performance into a timeframe measured in weeks or months rather than days.

6. A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is possible, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR Part 5 and, if not, which exception under FAR Part 5 applies (FAR 6.104-1(a)(6))

Since receiving the DHS Secretary’s emergency invocation on 12/19/25, GSA and DHS have conducted coordination and market awareness activities, including:

• Review of available demolition contractors capable of operating within a Level-V secure campus.

• Engagement with DHS and GSA construction leadership regarding available procurement alternatives.

• Consideration of internal and interagency competitive options, to include: GSA Indefinite Delivery

Vehicles (IDVs) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) and Demolition Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), all of which were determined incapable of meeting the emergency timeline due to access, mobilization, and security constraints.

Given the immediacy of the risk, synopsis under FAR Part 5 is waived pursuant to FAR 5.101(b)(2).

7. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable (FAR 6.104-1(a)(7))

The Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated price will be fair and reasonable based on a comprehensive price analysis that will consider both standard demolition costs and the premium associated with immediate, emergency performance. The analysis will include comparison to recent demolition costs for similar structures within the GSA Public Buildings Service inventory, adjusted as appropriate to account for accelerated mobilization, after-hours and weekend work, constrained site logistics, and inefficiencies inherent to performing work within an active Level V secure campus.

The Government will rely on the Independent Government Estimate developed by GSA and DHS that includes escalation factors for urgent mobilization, compressed schedules, and security-driven sequencing constraints.

Phased pricing tied to discrete building groups will be evaluated to ensure transparency and traceability of costs to specific scopes of work.

The contractor will be required to submit a detailed price proposal supporting its approach and level of effort.

Where the contractor proposes alternative phasing, sequencing, staffing plans, or means and methods intended to further accelerate completion or reduce risk, the Government will evaluate such proposals as part of the price analysis to determine whether the proposed pricing reflects a reasonable correlation between cost, schedule, and performance. The Government may also consider optional or alternative submissions that present different execution strategies, provided they meet the Government’s minimum emergency requirements.

An initial price analysis will be completed and documented in the contract file with award of the letter contract, with a full price analysis to be completed and documented in accordance with the letter contract definitization schedule.

8. The market research conducted (see FAR Part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted (FAR 6.104-1(a)(8))

Review of available demolition contractors with federal experience and the demonstrated ability to operate within secure, restricted-access facilities.

• Review of applicable contract vehicles, including the GSA Region 7 Complex Construction IDIQ, GSA National Construction IDIQs, and USACE Demolition and MATOC IDIQs, to assess availability of contractors capable of meeting the emergency execution timeline and access requirements.

• Coordination with DHS and GSA subject-matter experts, including facilities, security, historic preservation, and acquisition personnel, to evaluate feasible execution approaches under emergency conditions.

• Review of prior demolition efforts at the St. Elizabeths Campus and comparable secure federal campuses to assess mobilization timelines, access constraints, and execution risks.

Based on the results of this market research, the Government determined that only Clark possesses the combination of existing on-site presence, security access, permitting familiarity, and immediate mobilization capability necessary to meet the Government’s minimum needs within the required emergency timeframe.

9. Any other facts supporting using other than full and open competition, such as: (FAR 6.104-1(a)(9))

(i) When 6.103-1 is cited for follow-on acquisitions as described in 6.103-1(c)(2), an estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and how the estimate was derived.

N/A

(ii) When 6.103-2 is cited, data, estimated cost, or other rationale as to whether and how much the Government would be harmed.

N/A

10. A listing of any sources that expressed a written interest in the acquisition (FAR 6.104-1(a)(10))

None

11. 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 required (FAR 6.104- 1(a)(11)).

GSA intends to continue to pursue full and open competition for future demolition or construction actions once the immediate emergency conditions have been mitigated and site risks stabilized.

12. Contracting officer certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer's knowledge and belief FAR 6.104-1(a)(12).

The signatories below, including the Contracting Officer, certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge.

13. Supporting Documents

The following documents support the facts and rationale contained in this justification and are included in the contract file:

• Attachment I - DHS Secretary Memorandum Invoking the Emergency Undertaking Authority under the St. Elizabeths Programmatic Agreement (PA), dated 12/19/25

• Attachment II - FPS Assessment of Security and Safety Risks Associated with Vacant Buildings on the St. Elizabeths Campus, dated 12/19/25

• Attachment III - OSCO Threat Management Operations Insider Threat Risk Assessment, dated 12/19/25

• Attachment IV - St Elizabeths Campus Map Unsafe Facilities

14. Signatures (See, FAR Part 6.104-2 and GSAM 506.304(d) for required approvals)

Technical/Requirements Personnel: I certify the requirement meets the Government’s minimum need and that the facts, representations, and data included in this justification are complete and accurate.

Submitted:

Project Manager Date David Marsden, Project Executive, Capital Projects East

Contracting Officer Date Brian J. Turk, Acquisition Project Delivery - Capital Construction Division (PQA)

Concur:

Director Date James Adamo, Acquisition Project Delivery - Capital Construction Division (PQA)

Office of the General Counsel Date Lesley B. Uhr, Deputy Associate General Counsel

Competition Advocate Date Ashley Seffernick, Director of Policy and Programs

12/31/2025

12/31/2025

12/31/2025

Approved:

Assistant Commissioner for Acquisition Date Liliana Delbonifro