BAHRedactedJan.pdf

For Official Use Only

Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

2. Description of Action: This proposed action is to modify contract W15QKN-14-C-

0032, a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) using RDTE funds, with Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

(BAH) 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3838, for the continuation of program management support services in support of design, development, integration, testing, deployment and maintenance of the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army

(IPPS-A).

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The IPPS-A system provides the Army with an integrated, multi-component, personnel and pay system which streamlines Army Human

Resources, enhances the efficiency and accuracy of Army personnel and pay procedures, and supports soldiers and their families. The Army will develop and implement the IPPS-

A system incrementally, delivering functionality to users in two Increments with multiple releases, referred to as Increments I and II. This proposed sole source contract extension would provide uninterrupted Systems Engineering and Technical Assessment (SETA) services to IPPS-A. SETA services under this sole source acquisition provide uninterrupted support to PMO IPPS-A and the Army G-1 Functional Management

Division (FMD) in the areas of program and project management; systems engineering;

lifecycle management; test and evaluation; business processing re-engineering; functional design; and integrated logistics for the development of the IPPS-A system.

Estimated total dollar value for the six month extension is $11.5M and $11.5M for the option period of six months. The period of performance for this contract if the option is exercised will be twelve months from date of contract award. The total estimated dollar value for this effort is $23 million.

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) (1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B), “Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements” causing “Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.”

5. Reason for Authority Cited: The proposed source is Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

(BAH) 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3838. BAH is the only viable source for meeting the mission requirements at this time. BAH has the intricate understanding of

PMO IPPS-A’s requirements to support in the development, implementation, deployment and sustainment of the IPPS-A system, as well as the institutional knowledge from performing these requirements for the past four years. The PMO is in the process of transitioning from IPPS-A Increment I deployment phase into the sustainment phase and transitioning into Increment II development phase. The PMO is also conducting a full and open source selection evaluation and contract award for the Increment II System Integrator

(SI) and BAH is providing Subject Matter Expertise (SME) and advisory services to the source selection board. All of these activities are scheduled during 1QFY15, 2QFY15 and

3QFY15. These separate time consuming activities are taking place simultaneously and

BAH is a key contributor to each of these milestone events and premier stakeholder ensuring that a seamless transition occurs during this critical timeframe.

The SI Increment II contract is a major full and open competition for a SI contractor to design, develop, integrate, test, deploy and sustain Increment I (during development of Increment II) and Increment II. The Increment II SI contract award is anticipated in the November/December 2014 timeframe.

BAH’s period of performance on the existing sole source support services contract is scheduled to end in January 2015 (2QFY15), within the same time frame that the above mentioned activities are taking place. If a new, competitive support SETA services contract were to be awarded during this critical period, a separate full and open source selection evaluation board, discussions and contract award efforts for the SETA services contract would be taking place at the same time as the awarding and on boarding of the

Increment II SI contractors. IPPS-A requires BAH continuity during the transition period from Increment I to Increment II. Based on the scheduled activities above, no alternatives to “other than full and open competition” are considered feasible. BAH’s experience supporting this program is the only viable option that will facilitate meeting the

Government’s requirements for the development, integration, deployment and sustainment of this Acquisition Category Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) (ACAT

IAM) Program within its established critical time such as the attainment of Milestone B and a full deployment of Increment I. In order to stay within the above mentioned constraints, PMO IPPS-A needs to utilize this sole source contract vehicle to obtain the required services.

The Army PMO IPPS-A is responsible for the acquisition, development and implementation of IPPS-A as delineated in Increment I and II (Increment II is dependent on the successful deployment of Increment I). The IPPS-A program is at a critical juncture. The program is preparing to transition out from Full Deployment (FD) for Increment I sustainment. Loss of current support services contractor would result in unacceptable delays and the inability to achieve mandated critical milestone schedules and ACAT IAM documentation requirements review and approval process.

As part of the Government PMO, BAH personnel were integrated as part of the Integrated Product Team (IPT) to deliver Increment I, which is anticipated to be completed no later than March 2015. Any changes and/or interruptions to the IPT would cause significant delays for Increment I. The current SETA services that are being provided will expire on 31 January 2015, prior to the completion of Increment I.

Continuation of SETA services is critical until a competitive contract can be awarded during 1QFY16 to allow for a seamless transition between Increment I and Increment II and ensures that the Increment II contractor is settled in and executes its contractual obligations.

Loss of required program support from a program knowledgeable and resident expert contractor across the PMO IPPS-A and FMD at this critical transitioning period will cause unacceptable program schedule delay of approximately eight (8) months, the minimum time required to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP), conduct source selection, discussions and contract award. In addition, the timeframe to conduct a transition to a new contractor and train inexperienced contractor personnel will adversely impact IPPS-A’s mission. On-boarding of a new contractor includes hiring, training, conducting background checks, gaining access to Government and military facilities, gaining access to Government systems. As a result, this could potentially cost the Government a minimum of $6.9 million of unrecoverable tax payer dollars. This estimate is based on the Increment I contractor’s current burn rate of $861,000.00 per month.

It is imperative for the Government to retain BAH’s program specific knowledge and expertise required at this time to successfully deploy Increment I, transition into Increment II, and avoid a break in service until a competitive support contract can be awarded. Disapproval of this contract extension for SETA services to BAH will have a significant negative impact on the IPPS-A program, the soldier, and the Army. Without the critical BAH skills and expertise, the Army risks the successful development, integration and deployment of an Army-wide integrated personnel and pay system.

Any delay or disruption to the IPPS-A’s current activities will directly impact the program’s schedule on a day-by-day slip. Failure to extend this contract will adversely affect both Increment I and Increment II. Lack of an extension to BAH to continue SETA support would impact the Program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the ability to complete all the contract actions necessary to complete the Increment I MS C FD schedule and ultimately delay fielding the IPPS-A capabilities to the Soldiers. The delayed implementation of IPPS-A will increase overall costs as it will require the Army to continue payment of $11.2 million per month of unrecoverable tax payer money ($3.2 million for maintenance of legacy systems and $8 million for payment of services) to sustain and maintain status quo for degraded legacy systems beyond FY17. The current legacy systems are only funded through FY 17, therefore any delay beyond this date would cause the Army to have to request additional funding through Program Objective

Memorandum FY16-20 submission process.

Disapproval of this extension request will place the IPPS-A program at significant cost, technical and schedule risk, delay the Army’s ability to meet the approved Increment I schedule, review and approval requirements, and result in the Army’s inability to meet audit readiness requirements.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: Additional competition at this time would cause serious harm to the Government. As a result, effective competition is not anticipated for this acquisition. Market research was conducted as discussed in paragraph eight below and the capabilities of other potential sources and contract vehicles were assessed, however, for the immediate need, a one year contract extension approval to the existing BAH SETA contract is the only viable option for meeting the mission requirements at this critical time frame. BAH has the intricate understanding of PMO IPPS-A’s requirements to develop and deploy the IPPS-A system, as well as the institutional knowledge from performing these requirements for the past four years. Therefore, a competitive contract for SETA support at this time is not in the best interest of the Government. However, the

Government intends to compete this requirement after this extension.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: A review of the Program Management Support

Services – 2 (PMSS-2) multiple award contract vehicle determined all five contract holders, including BAH, are capable of meeting the Government’s requirement; however, the period of performance for this contract vehicle has expired. The PMSS-2 multiple award vehicle is designed specifically for PEO EIS. The original award for this requirement was done competitively off of this vehicle. After that award expired, the next action was sole source to continue the current services. Once the Program Management

Support Services – 3 (PMSS-3) is awarded, as discussed below, this effort will be competed through that vehicle. Also, an internet search on the General Services

Administration (GSA) website found several companies (Lockheed Martin, General

Dynamics, Inc., Pragmatics, Inc.) that were capable of satisfying a portion of the

Government’s requirements, but not the entire scope. As discussed above, while there are multiple vendors capable of performing this requirement under the PMSS-2 vehicle, those vendors are not capable of doing it in the timeframe needed. The amount of time it would take to synopsize, solicit, evaluate, and award on a full and open basis would cause unacceptable schedule delays to the IPPS-A program.

8. Market Research: Market research was conducted in October 2014 by PMO IPPS-A

Business Management Division to ensure that there were viable vendors to provide the full range of the requirement. A review of the current PMSS –3 multiple award ordering guide determined all six contract holders are capable of meeting the Government’s requirement, however this vehicle is currently under review with an unspecified award date. Additionally, an internet search on the General Service Administration (GSA) website found several companies, under NAICS 541611, which were capable of satisfying a portion of the Government’s requirements, but not the entire scope. As a result, market research shows that other companies have the capability to provide the required services, however, for the immediate need, an extension to BAH is the only viable source for meeting the mission requirements during the transitioning from Increment I to Increment

II. BAH has the intricate understanding of the PMO’s IPPS-A requirements to support in the development, deployment and sustainment of the IPPS-A system as scheduled, as well as the institutional knowledge and resident expertise from performing these requirements satisfactorily for the past four years.

The absence of the incumbent SETA support contractor will result in critical Program performance, schedule and cost risks for the completion of Increment I, and could cause a delay in on boarding Increment II SI.

9. Interested Sources: No other sources have written to express an interest. Other sources that could possibly do the requirement were identified above. However, the reason those vendors were not considered was based on the critical timeframe to continue the current services. Notices required by FAR 5.201 shall be published or have been published, and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement history:

Contractor name: Booz Allen Hamilton

(1) Contract #: W15QKN-14-C-0032

(2) Sole-source

(3) Authority Cited: FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)

(4) The previous J&A anticipated going out full and open to the vendors that were identified above under the PMSS-2 contract vehicle in the 1Q of FY 15, however, the vehicle has since expired and is not available.

(5) This effort was not competed the last time.

(6) There are no unusual patterns for this effort.

(7) The previous efforts justification for going sole source was for continuity of support being vital to IPPS-A. At the time, BAH was the only company with the required knowledge and available in the time needed to support IPPS-A during

Increment I and the awarding of Increment II. With Increment II’s anticipated award and the transitioning to the new SI, the Government fully intends to compete this requirement in the future, as stated for reasons above.

Contractor name: Booz Allen Hamilton

(1) Contract # W91QUZ-08-D-0009/0001

(2) Competitive

(3) No authority cited as this was competitive task order.

(4) No justification was done for this effort.

(5) This requirement was awarded under the PMSS-2 contract vehicle which has now expired.

(6) There is no unusual pattern for this requirement.

(7) There was no justification done for this requirement.

b. Other facts: No other facts available at this time.