W911SA-16-C-0002_P00002__Redacted_revised.pdf

Control No: 2016-92

Contractor: VSE Corporation

Supply/Service: Logistics Readiness Support Services

Version – MAY 2016 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR PART 6 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Program/Equipment: Logistics Readiness Support Services for the 63rd RSC.

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2) as implemented by FAR Part 6.302-2 -- Unusual and Compelling Urgency

Amount: $5.9M

Prepared by:

Name: DSN:

Title: Contract Specialist Date: 27 Jul 16

Email:

Procuring Contracting Officer:

Name: DSN:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: 27 Jul 16

Technical/Requirements Representative:

Title: Supervisory Maintenance Management Specialist Date:

Management Representative:

Title: Director Date:

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

Local Small Business Specialist

Signature: _________________________ Date: 22 Jul 16

Local Legal Counsel

Signature: ___________________________ Date: 4 Aug 16

Division Chief

Signature: __________________________ Date: 5 Aug 16

Director, MICC Fort McCoy

Signature: __________________________ Date: 11 Aug 16

MICC Office of Counsel

Signature: ___________________________ Date: 15 Aug 16

FAR Part 6 Justification and Approval for Other than

Full and Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity: MICC-Fort McCoy, 1108 South R Street, Ft. McCoy, WI 54656

2. Description of Action: 63rd RSC requests a modification to a firm-fixed-price with cost-reimbursement line items contract with VSE, 6348 Walker Lane, Alexandria, VA 22310. The Government projects award for July 2016 and fiscal year 2016, OMAR funds will be used. An acquisition plan is not required because this procurement does not meet the threshold at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 207.103(d)(i)(B).

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment and transportation necessary to provide Logistics Readiness Support Services at various locations in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas;

for the 63rd RSC, in strict accordance with the terms and conditions specified within the contract and in accordance with Performance Work Statement. The scope of work for the modification will remain unchanged from the established contract.

Period of Performance: 30 Jul 16 to 29 Nov 16

Total Value: $5.9M

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2), as implemented by FAR 6.302-2, Unusual and compelling urgency.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: As described at FAR 6.302-2, when the agency’s need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals, full and open competition need not be provided for. On 15 March 2016 MICC – Fort McCoy received notification from GAO that a protest was filed on 14 March 2016 by XOTech LLC for solicitation number W911SA-15-R-0014. The notification required a stay of performance for W911SA-16-D-0004 which is a follow-on to contract to W911SE-07-D-0017-1U02. On 15 March 2016 another GAO protest was filed by White's Paint Blast, LLC. The government decided to take corrective action which was completed on 29 June 2016.

On 30 June 2016 offerors were notified of the results of the corrective action. XOTech requested and received information on why they did not receive the award 8 July 2016.

On 13 July 2016 MICC – Fort McCoy received notification from GAO that a protest was filed on 13 July 2016 by XOTech LLC. The notification required a stay of performance for W911SA-16-D-0004. The stay in performance and the imminent expiration of the current effort did not provide time to publish, assess market results, solicit and award a follow-on contract under normal processing.

The current contractor VSE has all required tools and highly trained employees on board that have been supporting the 63rd RSC for previous two contracts, over five years. The current contractor is currently operating the Contractor Owned/ Contractor Operated (CO/CO) facility within 20 miles of ECS-171. This facility is fully functional and permitted.

There will be no delay of support at this critical location and the government is currently providing oversight.

The current contractor also works at numerous Government Owned/Government Operated (GO/GO) facilities so government oversight is achieved. The current contractor is providing support for 95% of all the USARC Mandated exercises. The supported exercises requires issue and turn-in thousands of pieces of equipment between 30 July 2016 and 29 November 2016. Additionally during this time period more than 200 pieces of equipment will be returned to 28 July 2016 to be inspected and be put into 10/20 standards by 28 September 2016 and return them to 1st Army. . Further, a lapse in services would have caused an inability to maintain operations throughout the region would cause a "catch up" situation that would put exercise support for FY17 in jeopardy.

(b) Alternatives: Suspending contract support would bring mission failure to all above USARC training events. It would have an adverse effect to property accountability, training requirements and maintenance operations. If there was a break in service the 63rd RSC would lose property accountability of the facilities which are currently scheduled for inventory. All scheduled training provided to USARC personnel would have been canceled. That includes mandatory training to meet environmental and OSHA requirements. The equipment readiness for the Army Reserve units supported by the 63rd RSC would have decreased 30% per month by the contractor not providing this service.

The use of in house personnel would have had a negative effect on maintenance operation throughout the region. Current level of requirement to authorization ratio is 28% of the required strength at ECS 171 and 26% of ESC 170. The support by contractors at both locations raise the required vs. authorized ratio to 52% enabling the ability to maintain operations and support major training exercises at these locations.

Movement of government employees to perform maintenance at locations which support ongoing training exercises would have had to occur. Estimated required man hours to conduct exercises and complete the required maintenance would be over 40,000 hours at ECS-170, and over 20,000 hours at ECS-171 with an estimated overtime cost over $500,000 and TDY cost over $1,000,000. Scheduled Maintenance as well as Non Mission Capable repairs at these TDY employees home station maintenance facilities would have had to be suspended. This diminished support would have decreased the Fully Mission Capable rate of equipment to unacceptable numbers. All scheduled services at these facilities that become delinquent would also become administratively dead lined and could not be operated until the scheduled service was completed. This increased backlog could not be diminished without increasing contract numbers or again spending the above overtime cost at these locations.

(c) A four month extension to contract W911SA-16-C-0002 was required to continue performance during the 100 days GAO is authorized to resolve the protest.

Once corrective action was complete the stop work order was removed on 29 June 2016 and a task order was issued.

As stated above, on 13 July 2016 MICC – Fort McCoy received notification from GAO that a protest was filed on 13 July 2016 by XOTech LLC. The notification required a stay of performance for W911SA-16-D-0004 and another stop work was issued. Protest B-

412852.3 was filed by XOTech LLC citing that the offer submitted by the company who was awarded the contract was unreasonably low and should have been rejected because it was so low that it reflected a lack of technical understanding of the PWS requirements. GAO due date for this protest is 21 October 2016.

Upon examination of the protest and supporting documentation submitted by the protestors and the source selection documentation, it was the contracting officer’s judgment that the protest had no factual basis and likelihood of the protest being settled in favor of the government was high. Consideration was given to requesting a protest override; however, in light of the urgency to insure continued services, the contracting officer determined it was not in the best interest of the government to continue performance under the protested contract award. Therefore, an interim bridge action was required.

d) Impact: A lack of contract support would cause mission failure for all above USARC training events. It would have had an adverse effect to property accountability, training requirements and maintenance operations. If there was a break in service the 63rd RSC would lose property accountability of the facilities which are currently scheduled for inventory. All scheduled training provided would be canceled. This includes mandatory training to meet environmental and OSHA requirements. The equipment readiness for the Army Reserve units supported by the 63rd RSC would decrease 30% per month that the contractor is not providing this service.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a) Effective Competition: This interim action is a result of the protest that resulted for a competitive solicitation that included effective competition. In accordance with FAR 5.202(a)(2), this action will not be synopsized.

b) Subcontract Competition: The current contractor is a Large Business and has performed adequately in accordance with their approved subcontract plan that emphasized optimal competition.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: The follow-on contract for this requirement has been fully advertised and was competed as Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources. This interim action provides time for adjudicating the protest and receive GAO’s decision which ensures that the competition was conducted correctly and thus fosters an environment that encourages future competition.

8. Market Research: In accordance with FAR 5.202(a) (2) The proposed contract action was made under the conditions described in 6.302-2 unusual and compelling urgency that precluded competition and the Government would be seriously injured if by the time periods specified in 5.203. Significant market research had been accomplished prior to the solicitation of the action that is a subject to the two protests. The competition that ensued was robust as evidenced by the fact that the awardee, and two eventual unsuccessful offerors submitted proposals.

9. Interested Sources: See Paragraph 6 for the synopsis information.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History

Contract: W911SE-07-D-0017-1U02

Award Date: 27 September 2013 Competitive Status: Fair Opportunity

Contract: W911SA-16-C-0002 Contractor: VSE Corporation Award Date: 24 March 2016 Competitive Status: Sole source IAW 6.302-2 to continue services after protests were received.

b. Compelling Urgency: As stated above, the GAO notification and suspension of award occurred in mid-July. There was not adequate time for the Army to properly post the intent to sole source or solicit, evaluate, and negotiate the sole source proposal without extreme measures needed to ensure critical support services continued.

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

Date: 28 Jul 16 _________________________

Supervisory Maintenance Management Specialist

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

Date: 28 Jul 16 ____________________________

Director

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost or price to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. 1) the incumbent contractor has been performing the required services for the past two years with efficiencies gained while meeting changing mission requirements. 2) the incumbent contractor has the ability to perform these functions while executing many tasks and additional requirements utilizing cross-leveled resources. This determination will be made using the price analysis conducted at the time of award of W911SE-07-D-0017- 1U02. As a part of this basis, certified cost or pricing data will not be required and the following exception applies (FAR 15.403) since the prices that will be agreed upon are based on adequate price competition. At the time of award of W911SE-07-D-0017-1U02 there was adequate competition the new contract price will remain the same pricing as was evaluated for option period two on W911SE-07-D-0017-1U02 with the exception of a wage determination and collective barging agreement increase.

Date: 5 Aug 16 ____________________________

Contracting Officer

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

Date: 5 Aug 16 ____________________________

Contracting Officer

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of interim services from VSE Corporation at an estimated amount of $5.9M on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(2), subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services or supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition. I have reviewed the planned actions in the previous justification and found them to be complete.

Date: Signature:

Dean M Carsello Special Advocate for Competition US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, FSH TX