Justification_for_Brand_Name_Specification_of_MCCs.pdf

Control No: LRE-JA-16-0005

Justification Review Document for Other than Full and Open Competition

Program:

Product:

Authority:

Source:

Value:

Prepared by:

Name:

Signature:

FY16 Poe Lock Electrical Modernization

Electrical Equipment (Motor Control Centers)

FAR 6.302-1 (c) - The use of brand-name descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company

Rockwell Automation

$450,000.00

Bruce M. Walrad Contract Specialist

DlgllaUy signed by WALRAD.BRUCE.M.1385324274

WALRAD.BRUCE.M.138532427 4 ~~~~A~:;:;~;u~::.:'.,",~;~~.;~~000·'"='"·'"="5A· Date:2016.02. 17 16:13:24--0S'OO'

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

313-226-2134

17 February 2016

Contracting Officer:

Name: Robert W. Austin Contracting Officer

Signature: lolxdtv.~

Technical Representative:

Name:

Signature:

Andrei E. Sawruk Electrical Engineer

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government ou"'°°D, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=SAWRUK.ANORELE.1503497685 Date: 2016.02.18 06:35:36-05'00'

Requirements Representative:

Name: Jon T. lmbrunone Operations Project Manager

Digltallyslgn~by

~ ..,,.._ IMBRUNONEJONATHON.T.1384735513

""""' DN: C'<'US, oaU5. Government, ou=OoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn::slMBRUNONEJONATHON.T.1384735513 Date:2016.02.18 06:59:06 .()5'00'

Paget of 10

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

313-226-6819

18 h13 ,/.()/~

906-203-8971

18 February 2016

313-226-2156

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

Program Manager

Name:

Signature:

James D. Tapp Chief, Technical Services Branch TAPP.JAMES.D. 137928533 ~~;~~~t,1~:~~b~!~=~~~;.s~~2ii:~·;:~iKJ.

0 ~~;~~~6·, ~~;~ ~:~ 6~~!!·~!~~285330

District Office of Counsel

Name:

Office of Counsel, detroit District

Signature:

Small Business Representative

Name: Bonita M. Carroll Deputy for Small Business

Signature:

Field Competition Advocate

Name: L TC. James L. Booth Deputy Commander, Detroit District

Signature:

Branch Contracting Chief

Name: Robert W. Austin Contracting Officer

Signature:

Page 2of10

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

313-226-2384

Telephone: (3 1.J ) 2... '2-\r ' ie.~~2-L

Date Reviewed:

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

Telephone:

Date Reviewed:

312-846-5565

313-226-6572

313-226-6819

4 March 2016

H7XO9JLB

Typewritten Text

05 MAR 16

H7XO9JLB

Typewritten Text

1. Contracting Activity:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Detroit District - Contracting Branch 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 700 Detroit, Michigan 48226

2. Description of Action:

Control No: LRE-JA-16-0005

This justification is prepared in support of a brand-name specification for electrical equipment that is part of a new firm-fixed-price contract for construction services.

The purpose of the contract is to replace and upgrade the electrical, control, and monitoring systems at the Poe Navigational Lock, which is part of the St. Mary's River Navigational Locks system that is managed by USAGE at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This contract is funded as an Operations and Maintenance project in Fiscal Year 2016. It is to be solicited using an unrestricted Request for Proposal (FAR 15), and awarded on the basis of a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process (FAR 15.101 ). The estimated value of the brand-name equipment is $450,000, which represents 7% of the $6.2 million estimated value of the overall construction contract.

3. Description of Supplies/Services:

The equipment that is to be identified by brand name is described as follows:

Quantity: Three (3)

Items: Low-Voltage Electrical Motor Control Centers (MCCs)

Brand Name: Rockwell Automation

Technical: 600 volt class, 1,200 amp, arc-resistanUarc-containing systems with horizontal bus, motor starters, circuit breakers, circuit protection, integral communication, PLC monitoring and control, and NEMA Type 12 enclosure system

The estimated value of this equipment is $450,000.00.

4. Authority Cited:

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. Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (c) Application for brand name descriptions,

(1) An acquisition or portion of an acquisition that uses a brand-name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand-name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer-

Page 3of10

(i) Does not provide for full and open competition, regardless of the number of sources solicited; and

(ii) Shall be justified and approved in accordance with FAR 6.303 and 6.304.

(A) If only a portion of the acquisition is for a brand-name product or item peculiar to one manufacturer, the justification and approval is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer. The justification should state it is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer, and the approval level requirements will then only apply to that portion;

(B) The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company; and

(C) The justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see 5.102(a)(6)).

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

The use of the referenced brand-name product descriptions in the subject acquisition is essential to the Government's Requirements.

Prior to the development of the proposed specification, USACE personnel conducted market research to determine the availability of open market sources for the procurement. Efforts included internet searches, catalog research, reviews of past projects, telephone interviews with potential sources, and meetings with vendors who represent control system manufacturers. As a result, it has been determined that only the referenced products can satisfy the agency requirements without potential failure of critical systems and infrastructure and substantial duplication of costs that cannot be recovered . This is due to the following considerations.

A. Integration to Existing Equipment

The facility has a substantial amount of electrical equipment (embedded controls, protective relays, and supervisory systems) to support the four navigational locks and two hydropower plants at the Sault Ste. Marie project site. Any equipment installed must be compatible with existing equipment. In particular, any new equipment must be able to perform its primary purpose and communicate with existing embedded controls equipment and protective relays.

The facility presently uses a Rockwell Automation supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and infrastructure. There are several existing MCCs on the site with the associated equipment already in operation. These MCCs use proprietary software and equipment and this results in the need to continue to use this brand of equipment for the reasons stated below.

Page 4of10

The organization has manufacturer-specific software to support the operation and maintenance of existing equipment. The software tools for the existing embedded controls cost approximately $2,000.00 each and require recurring annual licensing costs. Adding additional devices from other manufacturers to the inventory would require the corresponding procurement and maintenance of additional manufacturer-specific support. This scenario will replicate for every new manufacturer brought onto the facility and, thus, continually add to the indirect overhead costs of maintaining the facility.

The organization has a substantial investment in training employees through manufacturer-specific courses. The level of sophistication of PLC-related devices requires employees servicing these devices to be manufacturer-trained.

Tuition costs per course range from $1,200.00 to $1,700.00 per employee. A one week course per employee easily exceeds $4,000.00 for tuition, airfare, per diem and lodging , and does not include labor costs. There are a minimum of 10 employees that work with motor control centers and associated systems at this facility. The financial burden to support a trained workforce across multiple manufacturers of these devices becomes prohibitive and is clearly not cost effective or sustainable. It is also not feasible to double the amount of time needed by each employee to service and train on such equipment.

B. Support and Maintenance

Existing motor control systems at the St. Mary's River Navigational Locks complex, which were installed within the last decade, require that the facility maintain a base level of essential tools, parts, and training to operate and maintain the systems. The introduction of a different parallel system would necessitate the purchase and maintenance of similar resources for the second system in addition to the components needed to convert/translate between the two systems. It would also necessitate the development of a separate storage and inventory system for the duplicative parts.

USAGE has invested in equipment to support the maintenance of existing control systems. The value of the equipment used for development and maintenance support work exceeds $50,000.00. Adding additional devices from other manufacturers to the inventory of equipment serviced would require the corresponding procurement of additional manufacture-specific support equipment estimated to be another $25,000.00.

C. Interchangeability of Parts

It is essential that the Navigational Locks complex be in operation 24 hours a day without any unscheduled interruption of service. The use of common components allows that, in a worst-case system failure in which spare parts are not available from maintenance stock, elements of compatible systems can be combined to maintain limited service until such missing or damaged components can be obtained by emergency procurement.

Page 5of10

D. Compliance with Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA)

Control systems at the St. Mary's River Navigational Locks complex are required to be certified under the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP). The specified equipment from Rockwell Automation has been reviewed as part of earlier projects and installations at the facility. Significant costs will be incurred if the Government were to use equipment from multiple manufactures. USAGE has to support these systems at a very high technical level, for which the effort includes both hardware maintenance and installation of software patches and firmware upgrades in a timely manner per DoD requirements. Using multiple manufacturers would place a significant burden on USAGE resources by increasing the potential for violating DoD mandates. This process is also very time consuming and labor intensive.

The inception of a second system that would need to be not only DIACAP certified but maintained as DIACAP certified would double the time and/or labor of the employees responsible.

Cost Analysis

Below is a table summarizing the cost analysis for this document. Market research has shown that acquisition of equipment of this type on a competitive basis can result in a cost reduction of up to 10% as compared to non-competitive purchases.

Research has also shown vendors to have comparable support and maintenance agreements and prices. It is therefore reasonable to infer the training, software, maintenance, and support costs to essentially double if a second system is introduced that would need to be maintained in parallel and harmony with the existing primary system. It should be noted these are annually recurring costs.

Cost Element Sole-Source Price Competitive Price Benefit/Cost of Competition

Control and Monitoring Equipment $450,000 $405,000 10% ($45,000) Manufacturer-Specific Maintenance

$0 $25,000 Add $25,000 and Suooort Equipment Controls Training Tuition, 10

Employees, $1,700 per System per $170,000 $340,000 Add $170,000 Person Annually for 10 Years Controls Training Travel and

Subsistence, 10 Employees, $750 $75,000 $150,000 Add $75,000 per System per Person Annually for . 10 Years

Software License and Annual $20,000 $40,000 Add $20,000

Renewal over 10 years Compliance with DIACAP, 200 man-hours per year per additional $0 $20,000 Add $20,000 software proqram

Unknown, Depends on Need Crisis Management of Spare Parts Variable Variable for Interchangeability of

Components Potential Project Redesign for

$0 $0 to Unknown

Unknown Physical Compatibility Additional Cost

TOTAL $715,000 $980,000

Add $265,000 plus

Uncertainty

Page 6of10

In summary, in accordance with the cited authority, sources of supplies have been deemed through market research, technical compatibility, and support requirements to be available only from the original source. The actual purchase cost between reputable manufacturers of motor control centers is, in itself, comparable. However, the burden to support devices from multiple manufacturers becomes prohibitive.

For every different manufacturer tens of thousands of dollars in indirect costs for support equipment, software, training, test documents, and spare parts are required.

The existence of differences of data, patent rights, copyrights, and manufacture design and processes limit the ability to operate and maintain multiple manufacturers with one common set of support assets. Therefore, it is extremely likely that an award to any source other than Rockwell Automation would result in a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that would not be recovered through competition.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

In the period from February 2015 to the present, market research was conducted to determine if other sources were available for potential competition. Corps of Engineers personnel conducted internet searches, catalog research, reviews of past projects, telephone interviews with potential sources, and meetings with vendors who represent control system manufacturers. To date, no other sources have expressed an interest and ability to support the contract action as needed.

The Corps of Engineers also posted a Request for Information (RFI) to the FedBizOpps website to invite participation and comment on the subject brand-name procurement. The RFI was posted on 17 December 2015 with a suspense to respond by 05 January 2016. Any party that responds to the notice will be considered as a potential service provider; however, USAGE has received no responses to date to express interest or to otherwise present information with respect to this contract action.

7. Actions to Increase Competition:

USAGE will publicize the award of the construction contract in accordance with FAR Part 5. Any communications from interested providers shall be received and considered. USAGE will also continue to stage regular industry days and construction conferences to invite comment and input from contractors on the means and methods by which our contract requirements are conceived and executed .

8. Market Research:

In the period from July 2015 to the present, and prior to the development of the proposed action, USAGE personnel conducted market research to determine the availability of open market sources for the procurement. Efforts included the following:

Page 7of10

A. Contacting knowledgeable individuals in Government and industry regarding market capabilities to meet requirements.

B. Reviewing the results of recent market research undertaken to meet similar or identical requirements.

C. Reviewing catalogs and other generally available product literature published by manufacturers, distributors, and dealers or available on-line.

9. Interested Sources:

No other sources have expressed either a written or verbal interest in this procurement..

10. Other Facts:

None. All pertinent facts, are stated in the paragraphs above.

Page 8of10

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.

Name: Andrei E. Sawruk Electrical Engineer

Signature:

12. Requirements Certification:

ON: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=SAWRUK.ANDREl.E. 1503497685 Date: 2016.02.18 06:36:35 -05'00'

Telephone: 906-203-8971

Date Reviewed: 18 February 2016

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.

Name: Jon T. lmbrunone Telephone: 313-226-2156 Operations Project Manager

Digitally signed by

~~,,.___ ~:~~~~·o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, Date !

'f /t- I /7 IMBRUNONEJONATHON.T.1384735513

Signature:

cn=IMBRUNONEJONATHON.T.1384735513 oa1.,2016.02.i0orno,30 -os·oo· Reviewed:

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Name: Robert W. Austin Contracting Officer

Signature:

14. Contracting Officer Certification:

Telephone: 313-226-6819

Date Reviewed:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Robert W. Austin Contracting Officer

Signature:

Page 9of10

Telephone: 313-226-6819

Date Reviewed:

Justification Review Document for Other than Full and Open Competition

FY16 Poe Lock Electrical Modernization Brand Name Sole Source for Motor Control Centers

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of these architect/engineering services on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c), FAR 6.302-1, subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name:

Signature:

Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819

Chief of Contracting, Detroit Branch

Page 10of10

Date Reviewed: