ACC1920.pdf

Department of the Army Limited Source Justification

W56HZV-10-A-A904 Task Order 0005

1. Procuring Activity: Army Contracting Command-Warren (ACC-WRN) is the procuring activity for this action.

2. Description of Action: Army Contracting Command-Warren (ACC-WRN) proposes to award a firm-fixed price task order extension against OMNIBUS III blanket purchase agreement (BPA) W56HZV-10- A-A904 task order 0005. The proposed extension will add up to nine months, consisting of a three-month base period and one six-month option. The award will be made via modification of task order 0005 of the BPA. The estimated value of this extension is $352,000, increasing the task order from $504,000 to $856,000. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Funds will be used for this effort.

3. Description of Supply or Service Purchased: These services are currently provided by Manufacturing and Technical Services, Inc. (MTS) of Huntsville, AL. The task order was awarded on 21 June 2013, with a period of performance that currently ends on 31 December 2014. The services provide programmatic support needed to perform planning, scheduling, coordinating, documenting, and reporting services required to sustain management of the Agile Process and Network Integration Exercise (NIE) events at Ft. Bliss, TX and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), NM.

These services provide Director, Capability Package (D-CP) the programmatic support to provide the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) (ASA (ALT)) forward presence and on-site engineering, program management functions and technical expertise required at Fort Bliss, TX and WSMR, NM to integrate Army, Joint, and Inter-Agency and International Programs of Record (PORs) in support of NIEs. In addition, these services provide D-CP services for current force and urgent need systems and other Doctrine, Organizational, Training, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTL-PF) elements necessary to achieve enhanced and integrated unit capabilities for full-spectrum Brigade Combat teams (BCTs). MTS’ programmatic services support this critical ASA (ALT) mission.

4. Authority Cited: This sole-source acquisition is authorized under 40 U.S.C. 501 and FAR 8.405-6.

Specifically, FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) provides that limiting sources is justified where, “In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.”

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. These services are a logical follow-on to task order 0005 issued against Federal Supply Schedule OMNIBUS III BPA W56HZV-10-A-A904. ACC-WRN placed task order 0005 after providing a task order request to all OMNIBUS III BPA holders and giving them a fair opportunity to be considered for the task order award, in accordance with the applicable ordering procedures under FAR 8.405-3(c).

The original order, therefore, was not issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.

b. The sole source logical follow-on to task order 0005 is in the interest of efficiency because the effort is currently combined with related NIE efforts and solicited under the upcoming TS3 (Multiple Award Task Order) MATO Contract (TS3), which is currently in the evaluation phase. ACC-WRN anticipates award of TS3 in Q1, CY 2015. However, the nature of the contract (multiple awardees and expected total value in excess of $3.5B) may delay the award date.

c. The three-month base period of the follow-on task order 0005 ensures continuity of service during the last stages of TS3 evaluation and award. The six-month option period, which may be exercised in whole or in part, is included as a safeguard to further ensure that no break in service occurs, should the complexity and high dollar value of TS3 cause a delay in its execution.

Awarding this effort to a new contractor will necessitate out-processing incumbent contractor employees, in-processing new contractor employees, and ramp-up of a new contractor – all of which will have to be accomplished a second time after award of TS3. Out-processing, in-processing, and ramp-up procedures include the following:

Out-processing:

• Security de-brief (two de-briefs are planned in order to ensure all personnel attend).

• Account for and turn in Government lap top computers and all related (Information Technology)

IT equipment.

• IT personnel must then “clean” lap top hard drives in preparation for re-issue.

• Turn in Common Access Cards to RAPIDS/DEERS office.

• Out-process and “clear” individual Government offices and assigned Army Post(s).

Note: Historically, this process can take the individual out-processing 3 days, while the Government effort can take up to 5 days as the IT portion takes additional time that the contractor employee is not involved in.*

In-processing:

• Issue Common Access Cards (requires appointment for each individual at RAPIDS/DEERS office with escort by D-CP staff).

• Security in-processing. As personnel will not all arrive at the same time, on the same date, each contractor personnel requires separate in processing appointments, which includes Program brief, WSMR range photography, Executive Officer briefings, and D-CP contractor badging.

• Information Technology (IT) and Network Enterprise Center (NEC) in-processing and lap top computer issue; must establish multiple computer accounts (for PM System of Systems Engineering & Integration (SoSE&I) and for D-CP).

o NEC in-processing requires approximately four days, during which time, each affected employee will be in “wait” status and unable to contribute to the mission.

Note: Historically, the Government effort is approximately 3 days (not including NEC effort), while the process can take the individual in-processing 7 - 10 days.*

“Ramp-up”:

• Each NIE cycle is executed concurrently with the planning of the subsequent NIE, such that the cycles overlap. Therefore, awarding the subject effort to a new contractor would impact two NIE cycles. Each NIE is a very fast paced planning, coordination, and execution event. Hence, it portrays the Agile Information Technology development process as its core level. The contractors and government personal that execute an NIE cycle are constantly interacting and interfacing across multiple Army and Navy organizations. Due to the overlapping of NIEs, establishing cogitative efforts across multiple organizations is very taxing and time intensive.

• Due to the cogitative efforts that must first be established to execute NIE cycles, a new contractor would perform less efficiently than the incumbent during approximately the first twelve months of service. This estimate is based on past, similar efforts. The new contractor team, both local employees performing the required services and management/back office personnel, would require additional time to perform the tasks required for this effort due to the learning curve associated with this effort. While the contractor team may be well-versed in the requirements, the need to acclimate

Comment [A1]: Operation Security (OPSEC)

Comment [A2]: OPSEC to the environment, become familiar with potentially new systems (Radio Frequency (Amplitude Modulating and or Frequency Modulating) radios operated via Software Computing technologies) or waveforms (Soldier Radio Waveform and or Wideband Networking Waveform)* leads to inefficiencies. Historically, a new contractor team is able to attain full efficiency approximately twelve months after start of performance of the effort.

In addition to the additional time required for out-processing, in-processing and ramp up, based on previous experience with similar efforts, re-soliciting and competing the stated NIE services effort would require a lead time of approximately six months. Therefore, the impact on efficiency, if this effort is competed and a new contractor is selected to perform, is, at a minimum, a 6.5 month delay in performance (6 months to compete the effort, and at least 2 weeks for in-processing and out-processing).

In addition, as stated above, the contractor would be operating less efficiently for approximately 12 months (in this case, the entire 9 month period of performance of this effort, inclusive of options) because of the learning curve involved during the ramp up. In contrast, the proposed extension with MTS will efficiently transition the subject effort from OMNIBUS III to TS3, while avoiding the above-stated inefficiencies.

d. The sole source logical follow-on to task order 0001 is in the interest of economy because the historical Government cost associated with out-processing MTS, as well as in-processing and ramp-up of a new contractor, is $7,600. In addition, based on past similar efforts, the value of contractor employees’ non-productive time spent in-processing and out-processing is estimated at $8,880. Based on these estimates, the total estimated cost of out-processing, in-processing and ramp up equals $16,480.

Additionally, based on past similar efforts, the Government estimates that a new contractor would require additional manpower or overtime or both of approximately 15% of the affected contract price due to the learning curve associated with this effort. Based on historical inefficiencies experienced during the ramp-up period, these additional labor resources would be required to maintain the required support. $52,089 of additional costs associated with learning curve inefficiencies during the proposed nine month period of performance were estimated using 15% of the total estimated direct labor equaling $347,259 ($115,753 for the base period and $231,506 for the option period). Therefore, the estimated total costs associated with the inefficiencies involved with awarding to another contractor, inclusive of in-processing, out-processing, and ramp-up activities (including learning curve inefficiencies), are $68,569.

Also, while the pricing for a follow-on effort with MTS will remain the same as the pricing for the original task order effort,*the Government found that the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Engineering Services rose 2.7 basis points from January 2014 (when MTS’ current labor rates took effect) to September 2014 (the latest figure available), from 154.5 to 157.2; a difference of 1.7%. Given the rise in PPI, which is reflective of labor costs of the target labor market, the Government does not expect that competing this effort will result in the recovery of the estimated $68,569 in costs of inefficiencies associated with a new contractor performing this effort. Therefore, it unlikely that if the Government were to compete this effort, it would attain any cost savings through competition.

6. Market Research: The contracting office conducted market research in Q1 of FY 2015 in the form of an open solicitation for TS3. Market research shows that multiple contractors are capable of performing the subject effort; however, due to the ongoing TS3 source selection, the Government is prohibited from releasing the names of contractors that are capable of performing this effort.

Although there are multiple contractors that are capable of performing the subject effort, for the reasons stated in Paragraph 5, awarding a sole source extension to MTS is in the interest of economy and efficiency.

Comment [A3]: OPSEC

Comment [A4]: Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) #4

7. Other Facts: The original Order was placed in accordance with applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. Fair opportunity was offered to all OMNIBUS III BPA holders. The contracting office received multiple offers; award (fair and reasonable price determination) was based upon adequate competition.

8. Actions to Increase Competition: The contracting office will solicit future requirements under TS3, per the competitive procedures identified therein.

9. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which is included in the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Printed Name: William D. Horton Electronic Signature:

Title: Deputy Director, Capability Package Date: 12082014

10. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which is included in the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Printed Name: William D. Horton Electronic Signature:

Title: Deputy Director, Capability Package Date: 12082014

11. Contracting Officer’s Best Value Determination: I hereby determine that this order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d) and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government’s needs.

Printed Name: Jennifer Jusela Electronic Signature:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: 2014DEC12

12. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Approval of Limited Sources Justification

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of programmatic support needed to perform planning, scheduling, coordinating, documenting, and reporting services required to sustain management of the Agile Process and Network Integration Exercise (NIE) events on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C), subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.