RedactedJ A.pdf

MICC Control No._12-22 __ _

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

Control No. 12-0001 Amount

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Agency: Mission and Installation Contracting Office (MICC), Installation Contracting Office (ICO)- Fort Gordon.

2. Description of Action:

a. Approval is requested to execute a modification to extend the period of performance for Contract Number W911 SE-07 -C-0013 for a six (6) month period from 1 October 2012 through 31 March 2013. The 6 month extension will be in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services". This option under FAR 52.217-8 was not previously evaluated as part of the initial contract award. An extension is required to maintain continuity of services and allow sufficient time to solicit and award a competitive follow-on procurement.

b. This contract is a Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract using Fiscal Year FY13/14 Operation and Maintenance Army (OMA) and Other Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The estimated value of this proposed action is . The anticipated base and award fees are and percent, respectively. An estimated maximum award fee of is anticipated.

c. The six-month extension will be in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" clause which is included in the contract but was not evaluated as part of the original contract award. In the decision of Major Contracting Services, Inc., B-401472, September 14, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) held that where an agency failed to evaluate the price of an extension authorized by FAR 37.111, as implemented in FAR Clause 52.217-8, the exercise of an option under that clause constituted a "new procurement" that had to meet the FAR Part 6 standards for less than full and open competition. Although this contract contains FAR Clause 52.217-8, the clause was not evaluated in accordance with the GAO's criteria. Accordingly, in order to exercise the clause and extend the services for an additional 6 months, the contract action must fall within the ambit of a proper sole source contract action under FAR Part 6.3.

3. Description of Services:

a. Contract W911 SE-07 -C-0013 provides Base Operations (BASOPS) support services for the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) and the Directorate of Logistics (DOL) at Fort Gordon, GA.

The contract is a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract that was competitively awarded to an 8(a) firm. The current estimated total contract cost is . The contract fee arrangement is percent for the base fee and percent for the award fee, and a percent G&A rate capped during initial negotiations for the life of the contract.

The total estimated value of the proposed action is .

c. The scope of work for the extension will remain unchanged; only an extension of current services is required. The contractor accomplishes all of the activities that are required to support the missions and functions of assigned and tenant units and activities at the installation level with regard to operations and maintenance. The contractor is required to perform such things as: Contingency Planning & Mobilization; Resource Management; Engineer Work Order

MICC Control No._12-22. __ _ Control No. 12-0001 Amount

Reception and Tracking; U-Do-lt Services; Facilities Maintenance and Repair; Ground and Surfaced Areas Maintenance; Pest Control Services; Plant Operations; Project Accomplishment; Transportation; Supply; C&EN&E Maintenance; and other installation support services.

d. Fort Gordon serves as the home of the United States Arniy Signal Corps and Signal Center of Excellence whose multifaceted mission encompasses training, doctrine, force integration and mobilization. The installation's primary mission is to train soldiers, from basic trainee to non commissioned and commissioned officers. The Signal Center conducts specialized instruction for all Signal Regiment military and Department of the Army civilian personnel and provides doctrine and training development support of publications. Fort Gordon provides year-round training for more than 54,000 reservists as well as Army and Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps students. Current training courses include: System Engineering and Experimentation Support, SATCOM Systems Training, LandWarNet Concepts and Requirements Support, EST 200 Virtual Weapons Training Support, Basic Officer Leadership Course Technician Training, and lAD Network Defense Training.

e. Fort Gordon has approximately 56,000 acres that contain several hundred buildings and facilities ranging in size from very large to very small, all of varying ages. Examples of the type and size of buildings that are maintained by the contractor are: an eleven story post headquarters, multi-storied administration and barracks buildings ranging in ages of new (after the year 2000) to old (prior to year 1950), numerous multi-story modular facilities, numerous Morale Welfare and Recreation (DMWR) facilities (a bowling alley, officers/enlisted clubs, baseball and football fields, multiple physical fitness centers, and multiple swimming pools), multiple cemeteries, numerous warehouses for storage, and several multi-level school-house facilities. These facilities provide essential training and barracks support for the installation.

The contractor is required to keep all of these facilities in full operational order to ensure that Fort Gordon meets its mission to train soldiers.

f. The DPW mission of keeping buildings, structures, systems, ranges, and surfaces operational is critical to the overall training mission of the installation. The buildings are used for classrooms and barracks facilities for the students and permanent party, the ranges are used for required training in weapons, and the various obstacle courses and other training structures are used to complete the training for all soldiers on the installation. With the constant training cycles currently being performed on the installation, continual maintenance of these structures is vital to the training mission. Fort Gordon has made maximum use of its suitable facilities and is in the process of renovating/remodeling those buildings that are not up to standard in order to meet mission requirements. There are no vacant buildings available to utilize for classrooms or barracks facilities if a building is closed due to maintenance. There are no vacant ranges to use for weapons training if a range is not maintained and kept in operational condition. There are no idle obstacle courses and other training structures to use if these items become unsafe due to lack of maintenance. Failure to keep these facilities maintained would cause either delay in the training schedule of cessation of the training activity in its entirety.

g. The DOL mission of providing logistic support to Fort Gordon consists of the following mission critical divisions:

• Plans and Operations Division provides logistical and technical support for Standard Army Management Information System (STAMIS), quality assurance, command supply discipline program, awards program, hazardous materials

MICC Control No._12-22._--+---

I

Control No. 12-0001 Amount managerrent plan, mortuary affairs, contract administration budget, and managerrent controls.

• Maintenance Division provides organizational, direct, and general support for installati9n maintenance and unit equipment, Modification Work Order (MWO) and war~anty programs, and Left Behind Equipment (LBE) and RESET support.

• Supply aind Services Division manages all classes of supply (except medical), installati~n property, central issue facility, hazardous materials, food services, ammunit'ion supply and laundry support. ·

I

• Transportation Division provides contract oversight for personal property movemeht and storage, official travel, General Services Administration non tactical ~ehicle fleet, the transportation motor pool, licensing operations, railhead operatio~s, and shipment of hazardous materials.

4. Authority: 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."

5. Reasons for AuthoHty Cited:

I

a. Introduction:

Given the complexity and magnitude of the contracted effort, and the critical need to avoid a break inl service it would be unduly disruptive to initiate a time-consuming competitive aw~rd process for the six-month extension period. Any break in service currently provid$d under the existing contract is unacceptable.

b. Background:

Contract W911 $E-07 -C-0013 was competitively awarded as a CPAF contract with an estimated cost of to Akima Facilities Management LLC on 13 August

I

2007 for Base Operations support services. To date, that total cost has increased to through within scope changes to the contract. Upon award, this contract contaided a base plus four one year options with performance periods as follows: '

Base Year:

Option Year On~:

Option Year Twb:

Option Year Th~ee:

Option Year Fotl!r:

1 October 2007- 30 September 2008 1 October 2008- 30 September 2009 1 October 2009- 30 September 2010 1 October 2010- 30 September 2011 1 October 2011 - 30 September 2012

When the currept contract was awarded in 2007, DPW and DOL were a joint organization kn¢>wn as the Directorate of Public Works and Logistics (DPWL). Since the time of contract!award, DPW and DOL have remained a part of the Installation Management C9mmand (IMCOM) but have split into two separate organizations. On 1 October 2012, QOL will realign again under the Army Sustainment Command (ASC) portion of the A~my Material Command (AMC) instead of IMCOM. Due to the pending reorganization of DOL under another major command, they are uncertain about the scope of their fJture requirement. The new organizational structure for the two customers und~r the current contract requires that the follow-on requirement for DOL and DPW base ioperations services be solicited and awarded as two separate contracts.

For DOL, the acquisition strategy is contingent upon the customer's decision to place a

I

MICC Control No._12-22 __ _ Control No. 12-0001 task order against the Eagle Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Logistics support or to initiate a new contract award through the I CO- Fort Gordon. For DPW, the acquisition strategy will be to issue a competitive 8(a) Request For Proposals (RFP) through FedBizOps.

Since 2007, training requirements have resulted in significant increases in facilities requirements for the installation. Many buildings and structures have been added or closed and some previously deactivated facilities have been re-opened. This has increased the workload and complexity of the requirement over the life of the contract.

Fluctuations in the level of training support provided at Fort Gordon in response to other contingency operations in-theater have also affected the workload. The base realignment and closure (BRAC) of Fort McPherson in FY11 has increased the workload for Fort Gordon, as it assumes support of the Gillem Enclave which was formerly supported by McPherson. This increase in workload affects not only the contract office at Fort Gordon, but DPW and DOL as well. Coinciding with this increase in workload has been a reduction in the TDA for Fort Gordon's Garrison which has left the Fort Gordon DPW and DOL without the manpower to develop follow-on requirements. To date, neither Fort Gordon's DPW nor DOL have begun development of their follow-on requirements. DPW has recently contracted for services to re-write/revise their Performance Work Statement (PWS) in an effort to begin the development of this requirement; however, the development phase is currently incomplete.

The current contract expires 30 September 2012; however, there will be a 60 day phase in/phase-out period, which would require award of follow-on contracts by 30 July 2012.

For reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, this is not possible.

c. Alternatives:

The following alternatives to the proposed six month extension have been considered:

suspension of operations, use of in-house resources, award a non-competitive contract, or extend the current contract. The most reasonable and cost effective course of action at this time is to modify the current contract and extend the period of performance until 31 March 2013.

1. Suspension of Operations: Suspension of operations is not a viable option. The DPW service for facility maintenance and support and DOL service for transportation support are provided under this contract and are directly tied to the installation's mission accomplishment. Failure to provide these services will cause a major disruption of Fort Gordon's and the Army's mission. The intrinsic value of this contract has become more evident as the installation struggles to find services that can be eliminated or reduced in order to accommodate budget shortfalls. The current DPW and DOL services have been pared to the minimum levels necessary to support the installation.

2. Use of In-House Resources: The current contractor employs a staff of FTEs to perform DPW and DOL functions. It would take 60-90 days to recruit and hire through the civilian personnel system and then an additional 90 days to train the personnel necessary to support the current requirement. This five to six month period renders this alternative unrealistic.

MICC Control No._12-22 __ _ Control No. 12-0001

3. Award a Non-Competitive Contract: A sole-source award could feasibly be negotiated for the six-month extension period. However, it would be neither cost effective nor realistic for another contractor to perform during that time period.

Based on the phase-in period of 60 days, the costs incurred when this contract was awarded would be duplicated unnecessarily if a separate award was created for the six month extension period. Even if a follow-on contract could be awarded on a noncompetitive basis before expiration of the current period of performance, a new contractor would need a transition period of 60 days and additional funding would have to be allocated to fund this transition. This cost would then be duplicated again at the end of the six-month period when a full follow-on contract is awarded. This is an unnecessary duplication of costs. Additionally, a new contractor may need to recruit/relocate/transfer staff, transfer and establish accountability of Government Furnished Property (GFP), and issue any subcontracts needed for continued performance. The high risk of mission failure presented by this alternative in addition to the unnecessary duplication of costs renders this alternative as unacceptable.

4. Extend the current contract. A bilateral modification to extend the period of performance is the only acceptable option. The incumbent contractor, Akima Facilities Management, is the only source reasonably available to provide the required services for the requested extended period of performance until follow-on contracts are awarded. Akima Facilities Management has the labor structure in place that will ensure the continuity of operations of services for the requested additional six (6) months of performance without any interruption in the mission.

d. Justification:

The incumbent contractor, Akima Facilities Management LLC, is the only available source that can bridge the currently provided services until new, competitively awarded contracts can be executed due to the magnitude and complexity of the requirement and the time available before the current contract expires. With a current staff of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), the contractor is responsible for providing DPW and DOL support personnel for Fort Gordon, Georgia. The functional areas that the contractor is responsible for are all interrelated services under the existing contract and, as such, they must be managed/performed by one source to ensure continued services are provided to the Fort Gordon installation. A six month extension of the current contract is required to achieve a 01 February 2013 award date for both follow-on acquisitions, with full performance beginning 01 April 2013, accounting for a 60 day phase-in period.

Other contractors would likely be capable of providing similar services if there were adequate time available to compete the requirement and allow sufficient time for a reasonable transition and phase-in. However, it is unrealistic to solicit for services of this magnitude, award, and transition to a new contract within the time currently remaining.

The current contractor has an approximate pieces of Government Furnished Property (GFP) which would have to be inventoried and turned in prior to transition to another contractor. The time associated with conducting a 1 00% joint inventory with the incumbent, successor contractor, and Government is cost prohibitive in the short time frame available. It will take extensive labor hours, in excess of one month, from each source to conduct a joint inventory. Awarding a short-term contract to a source other than the incumbent contractor would not be cost effective for the Government and would have a significant impact on the phase-in/phase-out costs.

e. Impact:

Control No. 12-0001 Amount

The failure to obtain approval of this J&A will result in Fort Gordon jeopardizing its mission to support the Army's Signal Training Center, to train students, and fulfill the Army's mission for signal training, resulting in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.

Without continuity of DPW services for maintenance of buildings and structures on Fort Gordon, the installation's buildings and structures would deteriorate below the Army standard for operational ability, resulting in potential closures of the facilities and disruption of training due to health and safety issues. Trainees require fully operational facilities at all times for both training and housing in order to successfully complete their training cycles. The maintenance of the buildings is essential to the training effort. In addition, without continuity of dining facility maintenance, the dining facilities would have to be closed due to health and safety issues. Fort Gordon has 4 dining facilities that feed over 2,716,907 meals per year. In the event of closure, training would halt because soldiers could not be fed to the standard required to maintain necessary daily caloric intake. Failure to keep the HVAC systems operational would not provide the required climate control for barracks necessary to ensure sufficient rest and recovery of soldiers and could also promote health and safety issues. Failure to keep the grounds and ranges adequately maintained would result in significant injuries to soldiers that would disrupt training efforts. Fields and ranges must constantly be cleared of undergrowth and platforms and latrines must receive preventative maintenance to avoid potential hazards and injury to soldiers. Failure to keep the surfaced areas maintained would cause interruptions in transportation of soldiers to the various ranges and training facilities spread across the installation.

In addition, award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Award to another source for an interim requirement would result in the duplication of phase-in and phase-out costs. There is a start-up period of sixty days required for a new contractor to assume control of base operations support. Based on the current contract value, sixty days of phase-in performance for an interim contract would yield an estimated total cost of ).

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

Based on the information in paragraph 5, above, competition for this action was not feasible. A riotice, as required by FAR 5.201, announcing the intent to negotiate a six month extension on a sole source basis with the incumbent contractor, Akima Facilities Management LLC, will be pasted to FedBizOps upon approval to proceed.

7. Actions to lncreasef Competition:

Based on the information in paragraph 5, above, competition for an interim contract until the follow-on contracts can be awarded is not a feasible option. However, the follow-on contracts will be set-aside for open competition among eligible 8(a) vendors.

MICC Control No._12-22. __ _

8. Market Research:

Control No. 12-0001 Amount

Market research for this short-term requirement will consist of the publication of the intent to sole source on FedBizOps. Due to the highly complex nature of this requirement and the time involved, ICO-Ft. Gordon does not anticipate industry interest in the current extension. The new acquisitions will be synopsized and published for competition among 8(a) firms.

9. Interested Sources:

The notices required by FAR 5.201 shall be published, and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

10. Other Facts:

Subcontracting Competition: Akima Facilities Management has a history of subcontracting with small businesses whenever possible. These efforts will continue into the six month extension period and will be evaluated in the award fee determination. Akima's established procedures include stringent adherence to competing subcontracts whenever feasible.

Contract Growth: The initial contract was estimated to be . The current value of the contract through 2 November 2011 is . The proposed six month extension would yield a total contract estimate of . The growth of the contract value from the original estimate to the current value can be attributed to increases in the workload required to be provided under this contract award as well as increases in the Department of Labor wage rates over the four year period. All additional work was determined to be within the scope of the contract.

11 .. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which is included in this J&A is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name:

Position Title:

Signature:

Date:

Name:

Position Title:

Signature:

Date:

Director of Works

D Logi~ti~

12. ·Management Certification: I requirement herein described is a valid requirement of the activity named in paragraph 3 of this J&A. The technical and requirements information contained in the J&A represent the minimum needs of the Government. The only way to satisfy the requirement is by limiting competition as described herein.

Name:

Position Title: r, F

Signature:

13. Fair and Reasonable Price Determination: As contracting officer, I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determined based on market research, negotiation and comparison with the Government estimate.

Name:

Position Title:

Contracting Officer

8 March 2012

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

Name:

Position Title:

Contracting Officer

8 March 2012

15. Legal Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Position Title: Legal Advisor ~

Signature:

Date:

16. Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Signature:

J!

MICC-ICO-FG Position Title:

Date: 2 fY)<lll :l 0 l d--.

17. Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Position Title:

D

MfCC Control No._12-22 __ _ Control No. 12-0001

18. Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Position Title: Special Competition Advocate, MICC

Signature:

Date:

19. Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Position Title:

Advisor, MICC

20. Review: I have reviewed this J&A and have no objection.

Name:

Position Title:

Associate Director. Office of Small Business Programs, MICC

Page II of 12

APPROVAL

Control No. 12-0001 Amount

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the interim sole source solution with the current contractor, Akima Facilities Management, LLC. for Installation Support Services at Fort Gordon, GA. Approval is provided pursuant to the authority of 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, subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

NAME:

TITLE: Brigadier General, USA Head of Cont~acting Activity