FBOJA.pdf

MICC Control No.: 2013-033 MICC-FC Control No. FC 13-09

JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: Logistics Suppori Services at Fort Carson, CO

Authority: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c) (1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Amount:

Prepared by:

Christopher A. Baldwin Contract Specialist

Procuring Contracting Officer:

George W. Williams Contracting Officer

Technical/Requirements Representative:

Contracting Officer Representative

Management Representative:

DOL Director

DSN:

Date: 27 December 2012

DSN:

Date: 13 February 2013

DSN:

Date: 13 February 20'13

DSN:

Date: 13 February 2013

MICC Control No.: 2013-033 MICC-FC Control No. FC: 13-09

Reviews: I have r;;wawed this JUstiftc.ation and tlnd It adeouale to support other than lull ano open tnmpst1ti:;n.

MIGC rnr! carsol!-Assocta:o Diteclor. Office of Small Business Barbara L

Contract and Flsc-.al Llf,-,. Attorney.

Sig~aturo. _d M!CC· Fir•!<! Dirt' Chial. Attorney

DSN

Dato j) '·. I,'

DSN

Date ('.:l. ,n-;,r! u:l -?d 1~3

DSN

D~l!e /;:{ /?~'rN-c.L".J.-

DSN 8

Date. ,. r7rh't1~~ tt' .l.d1 ;;;-

M ICC Control No.: 2013-033 MICC-FC Control No. FC 13-09

JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Logistics Support Services at Fort Garson, CO

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY: Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC), MICC Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO.

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

Request approval for a new cost plus fixed fee contract, under wlllcll support services are provided to the Directorate of Logistics (DOL), Fort Carson, CO, by the Incumbent contractor, Ki LLC. The current contract, W911 RZ-05-D-0009, including all available options, expires on 29 March 2013 and award of the reprocurement action is not expected until

Therefore, an Interim contract is needed to provide mission essential logistics support services pending award of the competitive follow-on contract being prepared at MICC-Fort Carson. This interim action would only maintain the status quo level of services during tills period while the reprocurement is completed. The proposed six month contract will consist of one five~rnonth base period from 30 March 2013 to 29 August 20·1 a and a one n1onth option from 30 August 2013 to 29 September 2013. The resulting contract will be funded with fiscal year 2013 Operation Maintenance Army (OMA) funds.

The total authority requested in this Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other than Full and Open Competition is as follows:

New contract witll a five month base period from 30 March 2013 - 29 August 2013, and a one montll option period from 30 August 2013 to 29 September 2013,

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES: The contractor will provide personnel to plan, organize, manage and perform the logistics support services for active Army units stationed at Fort Carson, including Pinon Canon Maneuver Site. The contractor will also provide the support identified in Army Regulation 5-9 for US Army Reserve (USAR) units within Fort Carson's area of responsibility. Logistics support services, to include supply, troop service support, transportation and maintenance of tactical and non-tactical vehicles and equipment, and maintenance of other government properly.

a. The Directorate of Logistics (DOL) supports the mission readiness of Garrison and tenant units, through the ARFORGEN model, including 4111 Infantry Division (Mech.), 43rd Sustainment Brigade, 41 h Engineer Battalion, 52ntl Engineer Battalion, 7591 h Military

Police Battalion, 71 st Ordnance Group (EOD), 10111 Combat Support Hospital, 10111

Special Forces Group, 4111 Combat Aviation Brigade, and US Army Reserve units.

Through inter-service support agreements, DOL supports external organizations such as Army Forces Strategic Command, Pueblo Chemical Depot, and Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Office.

b. The 4111 Infantry Division trains, deploys and sustains brigade units on order and conducts decisive full-spectrum combat operations in order to accomplish Combatant Commander Objectives. The 1 01 h Special Forces and assigned units perform the following seven doctrinal missions: Unconventional Warfare; Foreign lntern.al Defense;

Special Reconnaissance; Direct Action; Combating Terrorism: Counter-proliferation; and Information Operations. Tile 71 51 Ordnance Group (EOD) deploys and conducts operations in support of the combatant commanders or other government agencies to counter chemical. biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons (CBRNE) and

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threats. The 52nd Engineer Battalion conducts full spectrum engineering operations in support of Corps, Division, Brigade or regional Joint Tasl< Force combatant commanders in a joint and combined environment.

c. Supply functions include operation of Standard Army Retail Sqpply System Level 1 (SARSS 1) and Standard Army Retail Supply System Level 2A ( SARSS2A) sites, inventory management, ammunition supply point, supply systems administration, asset and transaction reporting, Troop Issue Subsistence Activity, Central Issue Facility, Consolidated Installation Property Book Office, and the receiving, storing, issuing, classifying, and disposing of supplies and equipment.

d. Transportation services include inbound and outbound materiel movements, blocking, bracing, packing, crating and tie down. a11d terminal warehouse operations.

e. Maintenance includes performing field maintenance (Technical Manual1 0/20/30 level maintenance tasks), sustainment maintenance, and limited depot maintenance on Army tactical and non-tactical ground equipment. allied trades operations, repair of communication and electronic equipment; night vision devices (NVDs), and weapon repairs. ·

f. The above logistics services impact the mission of every unit assigned to Fort Carson and, ultimately, the ability of the U.S. Army to provide operational units ready and able to support the mission as directed by civil authorities.

4. AUTHORITY CITED: The statutory aLithority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c) (1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED: Approval of this Justification and Approval is imperative to guarantee the continuation of service until the competitive follow-on contract is awarded.

Pursuant to the provisions of FAR 6.302-1 (a)(2)(iii), only one source can provide the required contract support services to fulfill the DOL mission of providing supply and services, materiel maintenance, and transportation services to Army soldiers at Fort Carson. While other alternatives were considered, as discussed below, any choice other than an interim contract to the incumbent contractor will result in both substantial duplication of cost to the government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and also result in unacceptable delays to fulfilling DOL's requirements.

a. Background: MICC-Fort Carson awarded an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to Ki LLC In September 2005 as an Alaska Native 8(a) sole source award . under FAR 19.805-1 (b){2). The contract was awarded for a base year and four one-year option periods. The four contractual option periods extending the term of the contract under FAR 52.217-9 have exp1red, as has a six month extension of services under FAR 52.217-8.

from 30 September 2010 through 29 March 2011.

b. The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA}, on 21 January 2011 authorized an extension of the current contract for a period of twelve months, with two additional six-month option periods. A modification to exercise the first of tile two six-month options, for the period from 30 March 2012 through 29 September 2012 was

Page 4 ()f 11 issued on 29 January 2012. whereas the second six-month option modification extending the performance to 29 Marcl12013 was exercised beginning on 30 September2012.

L In 2009, the MICC Acquisition Center at Fort Knox initiated the acquisition of a follow-on contract for DOL The acquisition process for the new contract had encountered several substantial delays:

1. The Army pursued several alternatives for executing logistics missions, including a proposed split of DOL responsibilities into a Directorate of Material (DOM), and a Directorate of Support Services (DOSS), whicl1 required a complete rws· revision. ·

2. While the requirement was at Fort Knox the DOL directors provided input to the PWS with different initiatives which also impacted the definition of the requirement.

3, MICC Headquarters determined in October 2010 to return the acquisition to MICC-Fort Carson due to delays, heavy workload demands at Fort Knox and its geographical separation from the customer.

4, 5.

6.

The projected acquisition milestones for the follow-on acquisition which originally projected an award date of had to be revised to

7. The expiration of the current contract on 29 Marcil 2013 combined with an expected award of the new acquisition has created the need for an interim contract to provide support services between 29 March 2013 and a follow-on contract

Alternatives:

i. Suspension of logistics support services: The services procured by this contract are tied directly to tile mission success of the Department of Army and cannot cease without a negative impact on the Army's mission and the mission of Fort Carson. The services are needed to provide the opportunity for Soldiers to train, prepare for deployments, and return from deployments. Supply and services, materiel maintenance, and traflsportation services are basic necessities for keeping Soldiers and equipment ready for combat. Lack of supplies and services, maintenance, and transportation services would negatively affect unit and Soldier readiness and present unacceptable interruptions ir1 trainlr1g and ability to perform n1lssions. A delay of any period of tin1e can cause a day for day delay in mission execution. For critical equipment this would result in mission failure. This alternative is not viable as it would result in an unacceptable mission failure.

ii. Competitive follow-on: An 8(a) set-aside cor11petitive acquisition in accordance with FAR ·19.805 is currently being processed by MICC-Fort Carson for the follow-on logistic support services contract.

This alternative is not viable as it results In an unacceptable mission failure for six months from expiration of the current contract to the start of the new contract.

iii. Competitive interim contract: MICC-Fort Carson became aware of a need for an interim contract in late November 2012 as explained In paragraph 5(b)(i)(8) above. Attempting to make progress on the follow-on acquisition while starting a new competitive acquisition for a sixmonth lapse in coverage places the mission of both In real jeopardy of further delays due to overlapping processes and potential protests that could be initiated within the industry not on just one but two contracts. Initiating an additional competitive acquisition would also stretch the resources of the MICC- Fort Carson contracting office, create duplicate acquisition costs, offeror costs, phase-In/out costs, and cause multiple disruptions in services, It is unlikely that this alternative would be completed in a timely manner to avoid mission failure of the DOL.

iv. Sole Source 8(a) award: Use of the Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) program is not a feasible alternative for the interim DOL contract This acquisition exceeds the threshold for a sole source 8(a) set aside. The on going competitive follow-on acquisition is set-aside for 8(a) competition, and offerors In that acquisition consist of the most interested 8(a) contractors within geographical SBA district. Selecting a contractor from that pool could create the perception of an unfair advantage in that process.

v. Sole source award to the incumbent: The incumbent contractor, Ki LLC, can perform services of fhis magnitude and complexity for the period of 30 March 2013 through 29 September 2013 without an Interruption in services and has the necessary experience and resources to seamlessly and successfully provide the required services during the interim period. Also, the incumbent's performance to date has been satisfactory. Other advantages to .this alternative include eliminating the need for a complete phase-in and -out- with it's required physical inventory of millions of dollars of inventory (see the discussion below) and the disruptions to service that entails. When the reprocurement is complete, there will only be one phase-In and phase-out and only one period of disruption. Any other alternative would have two 60-day periods of phasing in and out within a 6-month period- that means 4 of the 6 months of this interim contract would be affected. The training and equipping mission of the Fort Carson DOL will be severely impacted for an extended period of tirne. This alternative is the recommended approach of this request for approvaL

d. Justification: Awarding a contract to .Ki LLC on a sole source basis is appropriate because this contractor is the only responsible contractor that can perform at full operating capacity beginning on the first day, there is a substantial avoidance of costs related to duplicate reprocurement actions and because the absence of unacceptable delays associated with getting a new contractor on board and functioning at a high level due to the phasing in and out of contractors and the disruption to the DOL and its customers.

i. Taking this alternative will (esult In avoidance of duplicate procuremer1t costs (see below) and the costs of phasing in and phasing out from one contractor to another

. Since any of these costs are actual costs incurred at the time they occur (exclusive of any fee or profit), lhese costs would be unlikely to be recovered- or decreased substantially- as a result of competition.

ii. In addition to these costs avoided, the disruption of services and its negative impact on the DOL and its customers would also be avoided. This disruption would be both as part of the instant contract action and once again at the time of the reprocurement. The requirement to provide these services is so critical that missing even a short period of time would result In failure of the DOL mission and avoiding these delays is an extra benefit of accepting this alternative.

e. Reprocurement costs and phase-in and phase-out costs. Performing two competitive procurements simultaneously would severely impact the manpower and resources of both the MICC-Fort Carson and the Fort Carson DOL.

i. The minimum additional costs attributed to a competitive interim contract is estimated at $159,381.80 for each acquisition. This includes the labor hours of one GS-14, two GS-13's, three GS-12's and three GS-11 's, for a three month acquisition period. ·

ii. In addition to the reprocurement costs and challenges identified above, If tile government decided to replace the incumbent contractor for this brief interim period, additional hardships and burdens would be placed on the DOL and its mission.

1. As noted above, this Is a large complex lo~islics support contract for a major Army installation and fighting unit (4 11 I D). The end of the performance period for the current contract is in the middle of the maintenance cycle for the deploying units.

2. Transitioning to a new contractor for the 6-montll period would result in duplicative efforts and costs associated With phase-Jn/phase-out efforts and a significant amount of government furnished property, MICC Control No.: 2013~033 MICC-FC Control No. FC 13-09 which would have to be inventoried and turned in prior to transition to another contractor. According to DOL, a 60 day phase-in/phase-out effort alone would involve contract employees with an .estimated cost of . According to the incumbent contractor. the cost for the contractor alone to perform the required 100% inventory is approximately . Added to the estimated costs of government personnel, a 100% joint inven1oty of 3,363 items valued at $'16,373,157.00 is estimated to cost approximately .

3. These inventories typically require the functional areas to temporarily suspend services while the inventories are being perforfned.

Suspending services a second time to phase-in and ~out the successful offeror of the reprocurement in such a short period would negatively impact the Fort Carson DOL mission.

4. For the interim period, then, the costs to bring another contractor in fo.r this interim period and then achieve full operational capabilities would be approximate as follows:

a. Reprocurement:

b. Outgoing contradtorphase out:

c. Outgoing contractor closeout Inventory:

d. Incoming contractor phase in:

e. Incoming contractor initial inventory:

5. The startup activities which would be required after the formal reprocurement would also require incoming and outgoing phase-h) and out plus initial and close out inventories. Therefore all of the costs of the interim period would be costs duplicated from actions taken just a few months earlier. Since this is a cost-plus fixed fee type contract these costs represent actual costs and are unlikely to be avoided or recovered by competition.

L Impact: Based on the above information, only one of the alternatives will not result in unacceptable delays and disruption of DOL's requirements. Today·s fiscal eiwlronment demands cost avoidance 1:1nd resource stewardship. The recommended alternative will result in cost avoidances of nearly (see above) and resumption of logistics supports services with a smooth transition. Without continuity in services, critical logistics and maintenance operations would fail, and the Fort Carsot1 mission would fall which is not acceptable. The government would not be able to provide the logistics support services without interruption and therefore would not be able to meet the Army's mission.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION; A notice of the government's intent to award a sole source interim bridge contract under other than full and open competition was posted on FedBizOpps on 4 January 2013 with responses due by 9 January 2013. There were no inquires received in response to the synopsis notice.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION: The requested interim contract will meet the immediate requirement needs until the competitive follow-on long-term contract can be finalized.

The follow-on contact has been solicited as an individual competitive B(a) set aside, To increase competition for the follow-on contract, sources sought notices were posted to FedBizOpps.

8. MARKET RESEARCH: Based on market research conducted by MICC-Fort Carson for the folloW··on contract, several contractors are capable of providing similar services. Market research for the follow-on acquisition utilized two separate Sources Sought notices, benchmarking similar or like requirements within the Department of Defense, Requests for Information (RFI) notices and searches of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Dynamic Small Business Search engine. As a result of this research, it was determined the follow-on acquisition would be solicited set aside as a competitive B(a) requirement. The on~going reprocurement has generated a lot of interest and undoubtedly will be a successful competitive procurement.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES: There were no responses as of the closing date.

10. OTHER FACTS:

a. Procurement History: See paragraph 5 (a) above.

b. Acquisition data availability: The government's requirements are defined In the performance work statement

c. Unusual and compelling urgency; N/A

d. Subcontracting Competition: N/A

13. FAIR AND REASONABLE COST DETERMINATION: I hereby determine hat the anticipated price for this contract action will be fair and reasonable, The techniques identified at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(v) will be used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor's proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at 15.404-1(c)(2)(1)(D) will be used to further ensure award Will be at fair and reasonable prices. .f ·-" LJ:3/~o/.:?tJ;

George W. Wi.lliams Date:

Contracting Officer Sign

14. PROCURING CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION: I certify that this justification ls accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief./ /6 os/.:z,;/.;1 01

George W. Williams Date:

Division Chief. Construction Signatu

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Fort Carson Logistics Support Services from Kl LLC for for 5 months plus one option month on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 USC 2304 (c)(1 ), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements, SLlbject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services l1erein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Signatur Date:_.!5"' tilfl!k 24!3

MICC-FDO-For Bragg Special C mpetition Advocate Mission and Installation Contracting Command