Corrosion Control Hangar_Limited ReDesign_and_Type C_Sole Source JA_20240430_Redacted.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE

Control Number: TXANG 24-01

Justification Review Document for Other than Full and Open Competition

Program: The Texas Air National Guard (ANG) requires an Architect & Engineering (A- E) firm to review all design documents previously developed for the Corrosion Control Hangar Design (Project No. KELL169014). The firm is required to update the design to reflect all code and criteria changes to comply with current standards, remove basis of design references and brand name manufacturer reference, and provide a re-baselined cost estimate.

Authority: 10 United States Code 3204(a)(1) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A), Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

Amount:

Prepared by:

Typed Name: MSgt Joel Yerkey DSN: 945-7140

Title: Contracting Specialist

E-mail: joel.yerkey.1@us.af.mil

Contracting Officer:

Typed Name: Amanda Bogue Phone: 860-908-6341

E-Mail: amanda.m.bouge.civ@army.mil

Technical Representative:

Typed Name: Maj Trevor Ellis DSN: 945-6419

Title: Deputy Base Civil Engineer

Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition FAR Part 6

1. Contracting Activity: 149th Mission Support Contracting Office.

2. Description of Action: The 149th Fighter Wing requires a Firm Fixed Price sole source contract for A&E services. The type of funds being used for this project will be Military Construction.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The Texas ANG requires the Designer of Record (DoR) A-E firm, FSB Federal Design Group to review all design documents previously developed for the Corrosion Control Hangar Design (Project KELL169014) and remove any unnecessary brand name or equal, and basis of design references and replace them with salient characteristics for required equipment. In addition, the firm is required to review and update the design to reflect all code and criteria changes that have been implemented since the previous completion of the design over 18 months ago and create a re-baselined construction cost estimate. The scope of this work is anticipated to be a period of performance of 40 days. Further, an option for Type C, Construction Support Services is required for project oversight for the follow-on Construction Project.

4. Authority Cited: 10 United States Code 3204(a)(1) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A), substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: A sole source contract for A&E services is required to be awarded to the DoR A-E firm who previously completed the design for this project under task order no. W912L1-19-F-0013. The award for the original design included Type A and B services was compete among all firm who held an NGB National A-E IDIQ contract. Competitive selection procedures were utilized among all interested and responsive firms. Subsequent to the completion of the design, a following design change was required after the NGB National IDIQs had expired and the task order for design services was completed and could not be modified. However, the firm had a contract with AF NEXT suite of contract, and a sole source task order was awarded as a logical follow-on task order to remove the High Expansive Foam and to perform a code and criteria review (Ref Task Order No. W912L1-22-F-0044).

Since the current scope requires the firm to alter the entire original design, the work is out of the purview and comfort of the JV that resides under the AF NEXT contract and would require substantial reviews to transfer liability. Additionally, in regard to Type C, Construction Support Services, it is economical and efficient to award the Type C services as a sole source follow-on contract as well. There is tremendous performance and liability risk associated with another A-E firm taking over the Type C services for a project that was designed by a different firm. An award to a new A-E firm other than

FSB Federal Design Group would increase the risk associated with these issues and -23, Responsibility of the

Architect-Engineer Contractor, if another A-E were to represent or attempt to revise the responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by the Contr However, if a new A-E were to make recommendations during the Type C services to revise or deviate from the original drawings or specifications, any liability resulting from those changes could not be attributed to the original A-E. This could potentially create a dangerous and complicated scenario if the Government needed to hold responsible the A-E party liable for any errors or deficiencies in the designs, drawings, and/or specifications. Therefore, FSB Federal Design Group holds sole liability for repair of the Corrosion Control Hangar design in accordance with paragraph d of FAR 52.236-23.

A follow-on contract to the original JV firms known as FSB Federal Design Group is required due to the following:

(a) FSB Federal Design Group is the only reasonable source to complete the required criteria changes for the existing drawings and specifications and liability that would need to be assumed if another firm besides the DoR were to make the scope changes.

(b) If an award is made to any other firm for the code & criteria changes, the substantial increase in cost would derive from a new engineering firm having to re-accomplish calculations and thorough reviews to assume all liability and risk

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: No efforts were made to obtain competition for this one-time requirement due to the rationale described in paragraph 5. This Justification Document will be made public after award through the Government Point of Entry in accordance with FAR 6.305.

The original task order was solicited using fair opportunity. At the time of the original task order, fair opportunity was given to all contract holders within the NGB A-E National IDIQs, and six (6) A&E firms responded with interest. This sole source requirement would qualify for a FAR 16.505 logical follow- on if the original IDIQ contract had not expired.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: No actions were taken to increase competition since this is a one-time requirement following on to a previously competed project. The original task order was competed using Fair opportunity within FAR 16. The increase competition is not cost effective to the Government. If the original designer does not perform the review and limited re-design, the scope would likely double, and may triple due to the involvement of engineers from every discipline reviewing and recalculating to verify the scope and inherit liability. No previous sole source was made for this requirement.

8. Market Research: There are many large and small businesses, to include vendors of all socio-economic categories, capable of fulfilling this need for the Government.

Unfortunately, all other firms would likely carry more cost and performance risk than the DoR. Due to the age of the original design task order, a modification is not able to be completed as it is no longer an active contract. Since FSB Federal Design Group completed the original Type A and Type B Design, there is only one source to complete the additional design changes.

9. Interested Sources: A listing of interested sources was not solicited or received for this acquisition.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement history. The original contract was a task order was awarded on 22 April 2019 to FSB Federal Design Group. After completion of the design task order, and more than a year subsequent to completion of the design, all NGB construction projects underwent a fire suppression change to remove from design any High Expansive Foam Systems and replace with sprinkler only designs. Since the construction had not begun on this project, the design required a modification for these changes.

(1) Original Design task order: W912L1-19-F-0013. Procured using FAR 16, Fair

Opportunity.

(2) HEF Changes issued under task order: W912L1-22-F-0044. Justification to go direct to FSB (as a part of a different JV), justified using FAR 16.505 Logical Follow-on to be under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) as would be required IAW FARAS 216-505(b)(2) and PGI 216.505, for any order exceeding SAT, that is a follow-on to an order previously issued for the same supply or service based on a justification for an exception to fair opportunity citing the authority at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C).

(3) If another firm was to assume the scope for design changes and type C services, the increased effort to review the entire scope of the design and re-complete calculations for verification would be an exorbitant amount of work and unreasonable cost which can easily be mitigated with the sole source plan proposed.