ASFIJAPostingModW911S004D00030089.docx

Control No. E-11-0029

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (Less than $650K)

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: Sustainable Range Program (SRP) maintains capability, availability and accessibility support to ranges and training lands across the 50 United States and overseas. The modification is to Task Order 0089, Range Maintenance Fort Eustis for Contract W911S0-04-D-0003.

Authority: FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iii) In the interest of economy and efficiency, the order is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

Amount: $105,346.52

Prepared by:

E-mail: debra.c.price@us.army.mil

Title: Contracting Officer E-mail: kenneth.tyson1@us.army.mil

Technical/Requirements Representative

E-mail: lisa.palus@us.army.mil

Title: Chief, TSS/SRP Support Division E-mail: p.beatty@us.army.mil

LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

1. Agency/Contracting Activity: Mission and Installation Contracting Center (MICC), Fort Eustis (Joint Base Langley- Eustis), VA.

2. Description of Action: Range Maintenance Fort Eustis

Nature: |_| New Requirement |_| Follow-on Order |X| Mod to Existing Order Number W911S0-04-D-0003-0089

Pricing: |_| Firm-Fixed Price |_| Time & Materials |_| Cost Type

Funds: |X| OMA |_| Other Funds:

3. Description of Supplies or Services:

The estimated value of the proposed action is $105, 346.52.

a. Approval is requested to modify the existing firm-fixed-price (FFP) Sustainable Range Program (SRP) task order to extend the period of performance from 18 March 2011 through 18 September 2011.

b. The Training Division, Army Support Activity (ASA), Fort Eustis, Virginia, manages the training ranges, training lands and training facilities at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Fort Eustis has approximately 8,300 acres of land with 2,000 acres of cantonment area. The training areas total 6,081 acres distributed throughout the installation, including 1,000 acres for small arms ranges. Training areas are located on both improved and unimproved grounds. The Range Operations Branch is responsible for coordinating military training and maintaining environmental quality of these unique training areas. This contract is for maintenance service under the Range and Training Land Program at Fort Eustis. This contract is to support the maintenance of over 5,500 acres and 6 ranges.

c. This proposed action is an interim effort to continue mission critical services to the SRP until a competitive multiple-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract can be awarded. The proposed bi-lateral modification to Task Order 0089 – Fort Eustis Range Maintenance will be a firm fixed price effort awarded on a sole source basis to the incumbent contractor, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group in Pasadena, California. The period of performance for this task order will cover 19 March 2011 through 18 September 2011 with a one month option through 18 October 2011 if needed. The total estimated value of this action is $105,346.52 and the effort will be funded with FY11 OMA funds. The performance period will commence upon the expiration of the current contract/task order beginning 19 March 2011 and “bridge” performance until a Task Order or one of the newly established Training Support System (TSS) multiple-award ID/IQ contracts are in-place on or about August 2011.

d. Currently, there is adequate procurement history available from previous contracts to show a reasonable expectation of cost and hours. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.237-3, Continuity of Services, shall be included in this task order to ensure that services are properly continued without disruption in the event the new task order is awarded to another contractor thus requiring additional phase in/transition time.

4. Authority:

|X| ORDER AGAINST MULTIPLE AWARD ID/IQ CONTRACT: Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (PL 107-107), FAR 16.505(b)(2) and DFARS 216.505-70(b), The contracting officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery/task order. Mark the applicable exception:

5. Rationale/explanation to support cited authority:

a. Pursuant to the provisions of FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iii), Parsons, the incumbent, is the only source that can immediately perform the highly technical and critical contract requirement in support of the Army’s SRP program, as discussed in paragraphs b and c above of the justification for the proposed extension period. An award to any other source would result in an unacceptable delay in fulfilling this requirement. Duplication of cost is not expected to be recovered through competition, and would negatively impact the Army’s critical SRP mission. The SRP provides the Army an overarching approach to the design, management, and long-term sustainability of the Army’s training lands and firing ranges. The original base contract (W911S0-04-D-0003), this task order was awarded from, has expired and no extensions are possible from that contract. Parsons has been performing work under the Sustainment Range Contract from April 2004 through August 2010. The current task order (0089) will expire on 18 March 2011. The main contract was previously competed and awarded by the MICC Center – Fort Eustis, VA. The follow-on contract (Training Support Systems (TSS)) to the Sustainment Range Contract has an anticipated award date of August 2011, thus requiring period of performance extensions on current task orders expiring between January 2011 and August 2011. Since following the normal competitive procedures would not allow for timely award of this bridge contract, this Limited Source Justification is required to continue services to meet the SRP mission.

b. Alternatives: Not acquire any services. Allowing the lapse in service to occur would result in mission failure and is not a viable option.

c. Justification: Additionally, a new contractor would require a minimum of 90 days to certify a new workforce in this field. The degradation and/or lag in service for a period of approximately six months is not acceptable at a time when Soldiers are needed to support overseas contingency operations “on-time” and “fully-trained”. Parsons is uniquely positioned to immediately provide a workforce with the capability to conduct required training without a break in service in the interim.

d. Impact: Failure to issue the proposed modification extension will result in serious injury to the Training Division ASA and war fighter. Specifically, training services will be interrupted or degraded to the degree that Soldiers will not have the quality training and certifications necessary to complete their mission in the operational Army and in combat. This would put the Army’s overall mission, as well as the individual Soldier’s lives, at risk. If the Limited Source Justification is not approved, then the Army’s ability to train its soldiers and units is significantly degraded. This contract provides for the management of training lands & ranges and the operation & maintenance of those training lands & ranges. The Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program in the contract provides the Army with the means to meet regulatory compliance as enacted in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The law establishes the national environmental policy including a multidisciplinary approach to considering environmental effects in federal government agency decision making. The ITAM Program operates on all major Army installations enabling Army units to conduct training to meet wartime requirements. The work required under the task orders continue to conduct the business of managing the Army’s 12 million acres of training lands & ranges on 102 installations in order to meet go-to-war mission requirements.

6. Market Research: Market Research was not accomplished due to the highly technical and critical requirement and award to any other source would result in an unacceptable delay in fulfilling this requirement. Duplication of cost is not expected to be recovered through competition, and would negatively impact the Army’s critical SRP mission. Consequently, there is not enough time to fairly compete this requirement. This interim modification is only a bridge until the competitive contract is awarded.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: Although this interim bridge modification will not be competed, future acquisitions will be synopsized in FedBizOpps.

8. Any other facts supporting the justification: No additional information is provided. Justification provided in above paragraphs.

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

Date:

10. Contracting officer’s determination that the order represents best value (FAR 8.404(d) or FAR 16.505(b)(5)), to include the basis for determination of a fair and reasonable price: The incumbent contractor has agreed to perform at the same rates as negotiated for Option Year 4 of the Sustainment Range Contract. I hereby determine that the anticipated price for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. The techniques identified at FAR 16.505(b)(5) will be used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. The Contracting Officer used a comparison of industry cost for similar work. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor’s proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at FAR 16.505(b)(5) will be used to further ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices.

11. Contracting Officer’s Approval: I hereby certify that this limited source justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Based on the foregoing, I approve this limited source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

SIGNATURE: DATE:

NAME: Kenneth J. Tyson TITLE: Contracting Officer

-5-